Sitting of 22 June 1998

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

    Defence Diversification Agency
    Mr. David Hanson: What progress he is making with regard to the establishment of a defence diversification agency. [45218]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar): We are now considering the responses to our consultative Green Paper on the establishment of a defence diversification agency. I hope that we shall be able to make an announcement before the summer recess on the way ahead.
    Mr. Hanson: Has my hon. Friend seen recent research by the Institute for Public Policy Research, which showed that Britain has failed to capitalise commercially on its scientific success in the past? Does he agree that one of the reasons why we need a defence diversification agency is so that we can use the skills and talents in the defence sector to help boost and promote Britain's commercial success abroad?
    Mr. Spellar: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The pamphlet he mentions rightly draws attention to our failure to disseminate and diversify technical and scientific knowledge. It has been a failing across British industry, particularly in the scientific sector. British industry has suffered as a result and we believe that a defence diversification agency would play a major role in redressing the position.

    Procurement
    Mr. Syd Rapson: If he will make a statement on his Department's plans for acquisition reform. [45220]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): As part of the strategic defence review, we have conducted a ruthless examination of our procurement processes in conjunction with industry and independent consultants. Our aim is to ensure faster, cheaper and better delivery of our future requirements.
    Mr. Rapson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are considerable savings to be made by reforming the way in which the Ministry of Defence procures equipment? Will the issue be at the forefront of thinking when the White Paper is produced, along with the policy on disposal, following the Chancellor's pressure to release land that we do not require in order to gain capital receipts?
    Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There must be better ways of procuring equipment than those that have been used in the past. I am not willing to tolerate the accusation that the MOD is a ministry of waste, but, all too often, equipment has been delivered late and has been overpriced and of inadequate quality. That must change and that is why I have made it one of the principle priorities of the strategic defence review to explore ways in which we can reverse that record and get better equipment faster.
    On the second part of my hon. Friend's question on the disposal of assets, we are interested in retaining assets only so long as they contribute to the defence effort and the proper and effective discharge of our responsibilities in office. We have no interest in hoarding land, assets or equipment that we do not require if their sale can provide a better defence for the nation.

    Land Mines
    Mr. Bob Russell: What representations he has received on progress in the destruction of United Kingdom land mine stocks; and if he will make a statement. [45221]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): My Department has received a number of representations about the destruction of UK anti-personnel land mine stocks. We are committed to ratifying the Ottawa convention. In the past year alone, we have destroyed some 450,000 anti-personnel land mines—some 50 per cent. of the total.
    Mr. Russell: I certainly welcome the final part of the Secretary of State's answer. However, there is great unhappiness about the fact that Britain has not ratified the treaty, as promised. Britain wishes to have a world role in defence matters. Until we ratify the treaty, many other countries will not do so either. Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that he will bring pressure to bear elsewhere within the Government to get the treaty signed?
    Mr. Robertson: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we desire to ratify the Ottawa treaty as quickly as we can and to make sure that we are among the number of countries required to ratify it before it can come into force. There is a very congested legislative programme because this is the first Session of the new Parliament, but, as and when the time is available, the measure will receive considerable priority.
    The fact that we have not yet found the time in our busy schedule to ratify the treaty does not mean that we have not started to fulfil the obligations that we took on when we signed it. To date, we have destroyed almost 50 per cent. of Britain's stocks of anti-personnel land mines. I am way ahead of the target that I set myself for destroying all our stocks by 2000, which would have been

    685
    some five to six years ahead of the target that we set in Ottawa. Combined with all the other initiatives in which we are involved, our commitment to the cause of ridding the world of anti-personnel land mines is a record of which I am extremely proud.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: We hear what the Secretary of State says, but what sort of figure does our country cut in the outside world when we wring our hands and say that we cannot ratify because of a shortage of parliamentary time? How much parliamentary time is needed for what we understand is an agreed measure?
    Mr. Robertson: It is certainly an agreed measure in principle, but there are a number of potentially contentious details which may require deliberation. We shall move ahead as quickly as we can. Since October last year, when the treaty was signed in Ottawa, only 19 countries have been able to complete their ratification procedures. Not all of them have moved with the speed and effectiveness that we have shown in meeting the obligations placed on us. My Department has taken significant initiatives on humanitarian de-mining, which have been loudly praised by other countries that are equally involved.
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: Given the Government's much-vaunted ethical foreign policy, is the Secretary of State not embarrassed by the fact that the Government have not yet ratified the agreement? Does he expect to be able to ratify it by the first anniversary of the death of the Princess of Wales? If the Government cannot do so, their resolve in such matters will be shown to be not as strong as they pretend.
    Mr. Robertson: I do not want to strike an acrimonious note on a subject with which we usually deal cordially and on which there is consensus, but the hon. Gentleman has a brass neck to say that. When the Conservatives were in government last year, they were not in favour of signing the Ottawa treaty or doing away with anti-personnel land mines. At the earliest opportunity, we banned the export, manufacture, import and transfer of anti-personnel land mines; the previous Government would not do that. We have signed the Ottawa treaty; the previous Government refused to do so. In the past year, we have already destroyed almost half the stocks of anti-personnel land mines. We shall ratify the treaty when the time is available, but we have already acted on our obligations, unlike other parties, which did not think that we should ratify.
    Mr. Martin Bell: Does the Secretary of State agree, in a slightly less partisan manner, that it is necessary to ratify the treaty before the recess, or the anniversary of the death of the princess? What better way is there to honour her memory?
    Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman is never partisan in his questions. I appreciate the concern that we should live up to our obligations; we shall. We are in the first Session of a new Parliament. There is considerable congestion in the legislative timetable. We shall ratify the treaty as quickly as possible when there is time. I venture to suggest that the princess, who gave so much attention to the cause of eliminating anti-personnel land mines,
    686
    would have been more interested in the efforts and energy of the Government to ensure that countries that have not yet signed the treaty do so, and to get rid of the stocks of anti-personnel land mines, which, as I have already announced, we are doing more quickly than any other country.

    Territorial Army
    Mr. John Bercow: If he will make a statement on the future role of the Territorial Army. [45223]
    The Minister for the Armed Forces (Dr. John Reid): The future role of the Territorial Army is being considered as part of the strategic defence review. No decisions have yet been taken, but I am confident that the review will result in a TA that is more usable and more relevant.
    Mr. Bercow: I thank the Minister for that reply, but I must press him further. If the Government decide to close 172 TA centres—more than one third of the total— resulting in a reduction of up to 18,000 in the number of part-time soldiers, how does the Minister intend to preserve the link between civilian life and the armed forces, which many hon. Members on both sides of the House regard as vital?
    Dr. Reid: I regard that link as very important as well, and did so when the Conservative party cut the Territorial Army by 30,000—not by the speculated 15,000 which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. There will be a number of stages to our examination of the TA, one of which will be to agree the principles on which the footprint—the geographical spread of estates and units—is discussed and decided. I am glad to say that those principles have been agreed between the Regular Army and the TA, and there is now the basis for us to examine in some detail in the coming months the questions raised by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Jim Murphy: My hon. Friend has answered in part the questions that I was going to ask him, but I should like to press him further on the future of the TA. In the past, it has been necessary, on occasion, to deploy members of the TA as individuals. Will he assure the House that in any future major crisis, members of the TA will be deployed not as individuals but within existing serving units, and will serve in that way?
    Dr. Reid: My hon. Friend makes a good point. In the past half century, in spite of the contribution of the TA—for which every hon. Member is eternally grateful—'TA
    members have never yet been called up in a formed unit. One of the ways in which we could place the TA more centrally in our defence thinking, make it more practically useful to our defence effort and increase its importance within our defence configuration is by considering calling up the Territorial Army in formed units in less than a full-scale war. I will give sympathetic consideration to that proposal, as it would make the TA more relevant in the future that it ever has been in the past.
    Mr. John Maples: Does the Minister agree with the views of the Army's Director of Infantry as set out in his letter to the

    687
    Commander-in-Chief, Land Command, published in yesterday's edition of The Sunday Telegraph, that cutting the TA to 40,000 would jeopardise recruitment and
    "erode the foundations on which the Regular Army is built & impair the nation's ability to generate the manning required for unpredictable levels of fighting power, undermining the strategic defence of the country"?
    Dr. Reid: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Front Bench for his first Question Time there, and his first lesson is never to quote out of context. I have the letter in front of me. Brigadier Monro—I assume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to his letter of 19 February—was asking for such contentions to be discussed openly, and for transparency in debating the issues which he raised. That, among other contributions, was taken seriously. Since then, we have had three debates in the House on those matters and I have answered several hundred letters and questions on them. No single subject has been given more scrutiny—as Brigadier Monro, others and I wanted—in the strategic defence review than the Territorial Army.
    Secondly, as a result of those contributions, the figure which we are proposing for the TA—which will be announced in the not-too-distant future—is much greater than was initially proposed to me. Therefore, I agree entirely with the sentiments which have been expressed, which we have taken into account in our considerations.
    Mr. Maples: The House will wait with bated breath for the long-overdue review and to see exactly what the Minister meant by that answer. I must add that I quoted accurately from Brigadier Monro's letter.
    Is not the Secretary of State's problem that what started as a strategic defence review has become part of the comprehensive spending review? He has been told to find cuts, and the TA seems an easy victim. Is it also true—as we are told—that he rather naively offered £500 million of cuts as a pre-emptive concession? Predictably, the Treasury banked that £500 million and is looking for a little more. That is a rotten negotiating technique, and apparently the country's defences will suffer for it. Has the Director of Infantry not realised some of the consequences of the direction that Government policy is taking? When what is rapidly becoming the Treasury's defence review is published, will not the rest of the country realise those consequences too?
    Dr. Reid: It is not the Secretary of State who is the problem, but the shadow Secretary of State—he knows all about Treasury-led defence reviews, as he was a Minister at the Treasury when, in the 10 years up to last year, the defence budget was cut by 30 per cent., the personnel in each of the armed forces was cut by 32 per cent. and the Territorial Army was cut by 30 per cent. None of us needs to take lectures on Treasury-led reviews from him.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: Is the Minister for the Armed Forces not being rather dismissive about the letter? It was not any old letter, but one from the Director of Infantry to the Commander-in-Chief, Land Command—it was not from someone promoting a private or special interest. Brigadier Monro says that the future of the Territorial Army is
    "inextricably linked to the long term health of the Regular Army",
    688
    and that
    "there is little point in reducing the TA £ to insignificance, whilst hoping to man an enhanced regular Infantry."
    Are those not serious and substantial criticisms of the Government's proposals, which need to be taken more seriously than the Minister has done today?
    Dr. Reid: No. I have the letter in front of me; it is dated 19 February, which I think, even using my rude mathematics, was about four months ago. Since then, all the points that the brigadier correctly made have been fully met. He did not want an insignificant TA; I have trebled the figures that were then being considered, as the hon. and learned Gentleman would know if he had watched the documentary on the strategic defence review. He also asked for transparency; the House has had three debates on the Territorial Army. So seriously did I take the suggestions that I not only paid attention to the letter and put right the problems, but discussed the whole issue of the TA with, among other people, the brigadier's father—indeed, I have met all the family.

    Abbey Wood, South Gloucestershire
    Mr. Steve Webb: What plans he has for employment levels at the Ministry's offices at Abbey Wood in South Gloucestershire. [45226]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar): Under plans already announced, it is intended that the transfer of staff from the Ships Support Agency to the Ministry's offices at Abbey Wood be completed by around the end of 2001–02. The impact of the strategic defence review may change the size and numbers of the units occupying the offices, but those offices should remain fully occupied by my Department.
    Mr. Webb: Is the Minister aware that more than 2,000 people at Abbey Wood, many of whom are my constituents, have shown their loyalty to the Ministry of Defence by uprooting their homes and families to relocate there? Does he accept that those people deserve to be shown loyalty in return?
    Mr. Speliar: Absolutely; I understand that, and we are grateful for the work that those people undertake. They understand that there is evolution and change in the acquisition process. In many cases, that change has been based on suggestions that they have made, which are strongly supported and welcomed by many who work at Abbey Wood. Announcements have been made about a steady reduction of staff over the next four years as part of the drive for increased efficiency. However, we understand the human problems that may arise, especially for those who have relocated; those problems will be sympathetically considered in the broader context of the reorganisation of work at Abbey Wood.
    Mr. James Gray: The Minister announced last week that he would remove the final 370 jobs from RN Copenacre in my constituency to Abbey Wood by 2001. When will he announce whether the Defence Vetting Agency will be based at RN Copenacre as a replacement and, if the replacement is not to be the DVA, what it will be?
    Mr. Spellar: That announcement will be made, with a number of others, after the completion of the strategic defence review. We will consider all the options; as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, there are a number of possibilities, of which he has mentioned only one.

    Beef
    Mr. Barry Gardiner: If he will make a statement on his Department's policy in relation to the purchase of British beef. [45227]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar): Our food supply contractor is bound to seek the best market price for beef under the terms of its contract and is also required to give full consideration to British products. As I advised the House on 1 June, the European Commission has recently approved a regulation allowing access to intervention stocks of British beef for use by the armed forces at competitive prices. That should allow our contractor to increase substantially the amount of British beef supplied to our forces in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Gardiner: I should be grateful if, subsequent to that answer, my hon. Friend would tell me what percentage of the stocks purchased henceforth by his Department will be of British origin.
    Mr. Spellar: We expect that it will be a considerably increased percentage. I am reluctant to go into the final figure, but we are looking at—
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: It will be in the defence review.
    Mr. Spellar: Actually, we will not know until we have looked at the contracts, which is probably the better way of doing it, rather than speaking first and reflecting later. In the light of discussions with our contractors, we expect a considerable percentage increase. Also, we have been analysing the acceptability of intervention beef, which has gone down very well in tests—I have tried it myself.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Although I appreciate that the Minister is perhaps unwilling to talk about future percentages, can he clarify the exact percentages at this stage? Does he envisage a doubling or a trebling?
    Mr. Spellar: It would probably be a little difficult to have a trebling, as that might take us over 100 per cent.; at the moment, it is something over 30 per cent. for beef, because of a number of measures which we have taken. We are at 100 per cent. for pork. We do not do well in the percentage for lamb—we have been in discussions with farmers to increase that percentage, possibly on the basis of long-term contracts.
    We are engaging in discussions with the farmers, and we realise that it is an important issue for them, but we are extremely pleased that colleagues at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have been able to negotiate with the Commission to get a major movement on a substantial increase in the percentage of beef coming from British sources via intervention stock.

    Bosnia
    Mr. Nigel Beard: If he will make a statement on the number of British troops in Bosnia. [45229]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): Last week, the United Nations Security Council, under resolution 1174, authorised the extension of the stabilisation force's mandate for another year. I can today announce that the UK contribution to the follow-on SFOR force will be around 4,800 troops in Bosnia and Croatia, together with some 350 personnel based in the SFOR headquarters and Italy. We expect to remain the second largest contributor after the United States.
    Mr. Beard: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that it is vital that the forces stay in Bosnia as long as they are needed to prevent a reversion to the blood spilling that preceded the Dayton agreement? Can he say what steps NATO is contemplating to prevent further ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and to prevent Serbian expansion into Macedonia? Does he expect British ground troops to be committed to any such further NATO operations?
    Mr. Robertson: On my hon. Friend's first point, he is absolutely right. Although Bosnia has left the headlines for the moment, there is little doubt in anyone's mind that, if it were not for the presence of NATO-led SFOR troops, there could easily be a return to the violence, hatred and bloodshed that we saw earlier this decade. When I go to Bosnia next Monday, I will be taking—I hope on behalf of the whole House—our commendations and congratulations to the British troops who serve so well, professionally and bravely in that part of the world, who have brought peace where there was war, and who, through their stabilisation efforts, are ensuring that democracy and a greater degree of inter-ethnic communality is beginning to emerge once again.
    My hon. Friend mentioned Kosovo, which was part of the former Yugoslavia. Of course, we are worried about the violence that is erupting in that other part of the Balkans. That is why, in the past fortnight, NATO Foreign and Defence Ministers have paid such careful attention to that province of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The violence that is on-going there is completely disproportionate to the sort of terrorist threat that comes from the separatist extremists who are attacking the Belgrade authorities.
    We will not tolerate that level of violence. That is why NATO has made it clear that all military options—excluding none—are being examined with a view to deployment if the violence will not stop and if President Milosevic will not return to the political process that would restore normal living to that part of his country.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: I am sure that the Secretary of State agree with the individual soldiers will and airmen and the members of the chain of command who briefed the Select Committee on Defence on our recent visit to Germany about the effects of operational overstretch and their threat to our long-term military effectiveness. Will he restrain the Prime Minister from lobbying fellow world leaders to take on extra operational commitments without a proper increase in the defence

    691
    budget? Will he explain how that threat to operational commitments and our military effectiveness will be helped by a cut of at least £500 million a year in the defence budget? Will he at least confirm that the commitment to Bosnia which he has announced today will be funded by the Foreign Office from the reserve, and not from the defence budget?
    Mr. Robertson: Of course I am aware of overstretch and over-commitment. That is what I inherited from the previous Government, to whom the hon. Gentleman was a special adviser and who, by their hollowing out, contributed to the overstretch and created the over-commitments with which we must deal. The brunt of the strategic defence review was designed to address the problems that the hon. Gentleman's Government left behind for us to tackle. I am well aware of the need to balance our capabilities with our commitments, but we also have obligations on the international stage.
    Although commanders in Bosnia and Germany would have told the hon. Gentleman and the Defence Committee about the problems, they would also have told him about some of the suggestions that have been made for resolving them. They would have told him, too, of their deep commitment to ensuring that the problems of Kosovo do not spill over into neighbouring countries, and into the wider region. In the strategic defence review, we have made sure that our country's foreign policy objectives will establish the capabilities of our armed forces. However, if that can be done by more efficient use of our resources, the country will expect us to do so.
    Mr. Jim Marshall: Can my right hon. Friend say how close we are to achieving the desired objectives in Bosnia? If we are not there yet, will my right hon. Friend suggest what time scale he foresees for the finding of an acceptable solution, and for when we might see the withdrawal of British troops?
    Mr. Robertson: It would be a wiser, or a rasher, man than I who would make predictions about the attainment of objectives in Bosnia. All I can say is that the figures which I have announced for our troop commitment to Bosnia show a reduction in the numbers that were there for the past year. As progress is made towards normalisation and democratisation in Bosnia, I hope that there will be further reductions. We are there not as a permanent, long-term occupation force, but to allow democratic and civilised standards to grow again in that country.
    Progress is being made towards Bosnia-wide elections in September. Dramatic improvements are occurring: for example, the problem of having a common vehicle licence number plate has been one of the biggest issues dividing the entities during the past few years, but that has been introduced; a common currency has been established; and even a common flag has been adopted. We are, quite remarkably, moving towards the objectives which were set, and I hope that, in the foreseeable future, we will see British troops back here or doing similar work, with as much commitment and as many rewards, in other parts of the world.
    Mr. Tony Baldry: The Secretary of State has confirmed that the United Kingdom is providing the second largest number of troops in Bosnia. In the context
    692
    of the strategic defence review, will we have a sufficient number of troops to meet any realistic and reasonable United Nations requirements of the United Kingdom, or will our United Nations commitments be tailored to the amount of money that the Ministry of Defence will have left after the Treasury has mauled its budget?
    Mr. Robertson: We see here another Tory ex-Minister revisiting the scenes of his crimes. Their year out of office may be the longest the Conservatives have experienced, but the fact is that for seven years they raided the defence budget by more than 30 per cent. They cannot come to this place and lecture the Government about the amount of money that we intend to spend on defence.
    We have conducted a strategic defence review, starting—as the previous Government should have done and were advised to do—with this country's foreign policy objectives and establishing, on the basis of consensus, the realistic capabilities that are necessary to meet all the eventualities that can be foreseen or might occur in the future. That is the sensible way to proceed, and there will be a sensible result. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will recognise that—because he is a fair man—when the review is published in the next few weeks.

    Aircraft Carriers
    Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: If he will make a statement on his replacement programme for aircraft carriers and the provision of amphibious lift. [45230]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar): We have considered the future requirement for aircraft carriers and amphibious lift capability in the strategic defence review. We expect to announce our conclusions in the near future.
    Mr. Mackinlay: While I do not challenge the prudence of conducting the comprehensive spending review, may I respectfully remind my hon. Friend, and through him the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that it is made explicit in our Labour manifesto—our new Labour manifesto, which I signed and am proud to be associated with—that our strategic defence review would be foreign-policy-led? Essential to fulfilling our foreign policy objectives is the expeditionary capacity that is provided by carriers. If we are to have power projection to stay off horizon where necessary and help in humanitarian and peacekeeping operations, we need that carrier capacity. That matter should not be in any doubt, and the Government should proclaim now that the replacements for the Invincible class carriers will be delivered and are essential to our defence needs.
    Mr. Spellar: They will no doubt be called the HMS Mackinlay. My hon. Friend argues strongly in favour of future aircraft carriers. Those arguments are being weighed heavily and seriously as part of the strategic defence review, and we hope to make an announcement on the outcome in the not-too-distant future.
    Mr. Keith Simpson: As usual, the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) has put his finger exactly on the Government's problem: whether they will deliver real carriers. Those of us who watched "The Paper

    693
    War", the BBC2 documentary on the strategic defence review broadcast the other week, witnessed a meeting during which there was much badinage between Ministers about naming the carriers. The Minister for the Armed Forces suggested HMS Robertson and the Secretary of State favoured the HMS Gordon Brown.
    Does the Minister agree with the permanent under-secretary that there is no need to put anything definite in the strategic defence review? Does he believe that he needs to say only that the Government are minded in principle to have a new generation of carriers and will not, in fact, order them? Will it be a paper strategic defence review?
    Mr. Spellar: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Dispatch Box. If he continues to ask questions such as that, he will be welcome to stay for a considerable time.
    As I have said, the serious arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) are being weighed very heavily in the strategic defence review. The matter is being finally evaluated, and we shall make an announcement in the not-too-distant future. Those are the serious issues that are being debated—rather than, I regret to say, the superficial question to which we were just subjected.
    Mr. John Hutton: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Navy's three aircraft carriers, the first of which was built by my constituents, provide it with an important capability to support our forces, and those of our allies, when deployed in out-of-area operations? We are modernising our amphibious capability with the construction of HMS Ocean, again in my constituency, and two assault landing ships for the Royal Marines. Can my hon. Friend say more positively that, if we are to ensure that that new amphibious capability will be fully effective, we will need in due course to consider a replacement for the Invincible class carriers?
    Mr. Spellar: I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and for his considerable and effective lobbying over several years on behalf of the Royal Navy and the excellent qualities of the shipyard in his constituency. These serious issues are being weighed in the strategic defence review. We look forward to making an announcement on that in the not-too-distant future. I take into account the excellent work of the Vickers yard in my hon. Friend's constituency, and of its loyal and highly skilled work force.

    RAF Northolt
    10. Mr. John Wilkinson: What plans he has to change the status or role of RAF Northolt. [45231]
    The Minister for the Armed Forces: The future of RAF Northolt is being reviewed in consultation with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. This work is being undertaken against the background of the strategic defence review, the DETR's study of business aviation in the south-east and the policies relating to airports that will be set out in the forthcoming integrated transport White Paper. No decisions have yet been taken.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Would not any responsible Government wish to retain under their control the specialist air transport facilities provided by RAF Northolt that are crucial to Her Majesty's Government, the personnel of headquarters at High Wycombe, Northwood and Bentley Priory and diplomatic personnel in the United States and other embassies? Should not those facilities remain under Royal Air Force control? Would not any question of RAF Northolt being transferred to civil control and becoming a satellite of Heathrow not only be bitterly opposed, rightly, by the local population but militate against its primary role, which is specialist air transport for the military and Ministers?
    Dr. Reid: Any responsible Government would wish, first, to pay tribute to the continuing role and contribution of RAF Northolt and, secondly, to assure themselves and the House that any proposals that even considered changing the status of RAF Northolt would be subject to thorough consultation. As a Minister in a responsible Government, I am glad to be able to give the hon. Gentleman an assurance on both those points.
    Mr. Stephen Pound: May I assure my hon. Friend that 1 am as one with the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) on this matter, if, sadly, on few others? My constituents are as one with his in viewing with horror the possibility of increased civilian use of RAF Northolt. The only ray of sunshine that pierces the dark clouds hanging over Northolt is the prospect that, if the list of putative bidders is as printed in the popular papers, whoever takes over will start by sacking all the pilots and returning peace to the skies over Northolt.
    Dr. Reid: I am sure that my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) speak representatively for their constituents. That will be a major factor in any consideration. As my hon. Friend referred to press reports, I should make it clear that my Department has received several unsolicited representations about RAF Northolt. Contrary to reports in the press, Stagecoach Aviation has not approached my Department, although an unsolicited commercial proposal was made by Glasgow Prestwick International in February last year before it was taken over by Stagecoach.

    Cyprus
    Mr. Robert Key: When he will visit Cyprus to assess the work of the British garrison. [45232]
    The Minister for the Armed Forces: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State visited the Akrotiri sovereign base in March. I shall make a more extensive visit to the garrison in Cyprus, starting tomorrow.
    Mr. Key: I know that the Minister will be warmly welcomed. I am grateful to him for facilitating my recent visit. Does he agree that the very few serious disciplinary offences committed by Her Majesty's forces in Cyprus should be put in proportion and that the discipline of British forces in Cyprus is second to none? When he visits Cyprus, will he examine particularly the recreational facilities available for single soldiers, especially as they

    695
    are now largely confined to barracks following incidents that have been mentioned? Does he agree that the tabloid image of British forces in Cyprus—that it is a posting to over-indulgence in sand, sea and sex—is a gross distortion and highly misleading?
    Dr. Reid: I shall not comment on the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question; he has been to Cyprus more recently than I have. I would, however, make the serious point that British forces abroad, especially in Cyprus, are constantly in the media spotlight. That is more so in Cyprus because of the dreadful circumstances some time ago of the Jensen case. That terrible, tragic murder will continue to cast a shadow over the British forces in Cyprus for many years to come. I should therefore make it plain that we will not tolerate indiscipline. Some incidents over the past four years have been genuinely shocking, and the full weight of the law has been brought to bear on those responsible.
    As the hon. Gentleman observed during his recent visit to the island, by far the majority of service personnel are well behaved. It is extremely regrettable that for the time being the many who day in, day out endure sacrifice in the service of their country are having to suffer for the irresponsible actions of the few. I should leave no one in any doubt that we will take robust action against anyone whose activities and ill discipline brings him and, unfortunately, his colleagues and country into disrespect.

    Persian Gulf
    Mr. David Borrow: How many British troops are currently deployed in the Persian Gulf. [45233]
    The Secretary of State for Defence: Almost 1,000 service personnel from all three services are currently deployed on operations in the Persian Gulf.
    Mr. Borrow: During the time I have spent on the parliamentary armed forces scheme, I have had the opportunity to have regular talks with members of the armed forces. They all share with me considerable pride in the role played by our armed forces in ensuring that Saddam Hussein was held to the promises he made to the United Nations earlier this year. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we must not be lulled into a false sense of security, and that we must remain prepared to make forces available to ensure that the promises made by Saddam Hussein are upheld in future?
    Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Our level of preparedness and our willingness to act if Saddam Hussein continues to confront the will of the international community and the role of the United Nations is not in question. My hon. Friend rightly says that many of our troops are still in theatre; not only those in Ali Al Salem in Kuwait—they went down there because of the immediate confrontation—but those who serve in the Armilla patrol, which has continued for about 14 years, and the pilots at Al Kharj in Saudi Arabia and in Turkey who police the no-fly zones in northern and
    696
    southern Iraq. All those personnel are in place to ensure that the Iraqi regime lives up to its obligations and does not continue to threaten its neighbours and the international community as it has in the past.
    Mr. Julian Brazier: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the first troops to arrive in the most recent Gulf crisis were American airborne troops? Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that, in considering future possible operations in the Gulf and elsewhere, he will maintain a full, rounded airborne capability, including the supporting elements and command and control facilities that are needed for rapid land-air deployment?
    Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman can be absolutely sure that, in the reshaping and modernising of our armed forces that will come from the strategic defence review, the capabilities we require to meet the sort of problems and conflicts we shall face in the future will be to his liking, and will make total common sense in relation to what the British people expect.
    Maria Eagle: Are the service personnel who are currently serving in the Gulf offered the same cocktail of inoculations as those who served in the Gulf war? Is there any truth in newspaper stories that inoculation of service personnel may become compulsory? If so, will my right hon. Friend consider ensuring that, when ill effects are felt, personnel are compensated properly and immediately, without having to take the Government through the courts?
    Mr. Robertson: No cocktail of drugs or inoculations was offered to any of our troops in the Gulf on this occasion. Anthrax vaccine was offered to our troops because that is a proven vaccination. To demonstrate my conviction that it was absolutely safe and had no visible side effects, I, my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces and the Chief of the Defence Staff, as well as the American Defense Secretary and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, took the vaccination. We believe it to be safe. We have no plans at present to make it compulsory, although in any future climate of threat we would have to make an assessment about how best to protect our troops.
    My hon. Friend asked a generalised question about compensation. We take our responsibilities for the safety and health of our troops with the utmost seriousness, but I cannot say that we shall offer compensation against things that we believe to be intrinsically so safe that we are willing to take them ourselves.

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

    Modernisation Committee
    Mr. David Winnick: What further proposals she intends to put to the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons. [45253]
    The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons: In addition to proposed changes to the legislative process, EU scrutiny and the explanatory memorandum accompanying Bills, I hope shortly to submit a memorandum on the parliamentary calendar.
    Mr. Winnick: With no criticism intended of anyone who happens to be a servant of the House, if the word modernisation is to have any meaning at all may I ask what justification there can be, two years into the next century, for wigs, gowns and swords to be worn in much the same way as happened centuries ago? Now that the Modernisation Committee is carrying out important work, is there not a case for that matter being considered and action being taken during the lifetime of this Parliament?
    Mrs. Taylor: That topic was mentioned in a recent report, and the Modernisation Committee is always open to ideas, but, so far, we have not been inundated with suggestions from hon. Members that that sort of change should be made. However, I noticed that, in a recent debate, the shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), said that he was taken with the idea of modernising in that respect, so we might return to that issue.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: May I point out that my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) did not mention wigs, and that we wish to dissociate ourselves from the philistine comments of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), which would lead to the sort of drab uniformity that may be suitable for the hemicycle in many continental chambers, but is not appropriate here?
    However, the question I intended to ask the right hon. Lady is, when she is considering the parliamentary year, will she bear in mind that she has the sympathetic support of the Opposition so long as there is proper safeguarding of Opposition time in the year?
    Mrs. Taylor: If would be interesting to have a debate on parliamentary dress, including wigs; if there were time,I should certainly try to schedule one in the near future. I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House are genuinely interested in changes to the parliamentary calendar, although I understand the hon. Gentleman's remarks about safeguards. Everyone will study any possible change carefully, but there may be some scope for improvement.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: If the Modernisation Committee and its members are serious about wanting to improve facilities for Back Benchers, instead of looking at nonsensical and superficial issues, they should seriously consider examining the work of the General Accounting Office in Washington to see how it provides detailed, accurate and factual support for Back Benchers who want to assess the implications of legislation. They should also consider expanding the support offered to Members of Parliament of all parties so that they can make uniformly useful contributions. The Committee should stop worrying about traditions that are important but hardly world-shaking.
    Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend will have noted that the Modernisation Committee has chosen to concentrate on the issues it thinks the most significant. That is one reason we have not spent a great deal of time talking about dress and wigs.
    The Select Committee system and our Library facilities already offer Back Benchers significant support, but we need to keep up to date with what Members require—not least because the demands on them are increasing all the time.
    Mr. David Heath: Will the right hon. Lady consider a fast-track procedure for the ratification of treaties that have been signed by Her Majesty's Government so that we can avoid the embarrassment of urging other countries quickly to ratify treaties that we seemingly cannot ratify ourselves?
    Mrs. Taylor: Legislation can always proceed quickly if there is total agreement. During the time we have been in government, I have found there to be total agreement on very few issues.

    Dounreay
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: If she will set up a Select Committee to assess the future of Dounreay.[45254]
    The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons: No. This matter already falls within the responsibility of the Trade and Industry Committee.
    Mr. Dalyell: That Committee's visit to Dounreay brought some sanity to a situation in which Dounreay has been the victim of sensationalist and technically ignorant journalism. Given the huge resources of skill on the north coast of Scotland, how can the Government do without the plant in tackling their own targets for carbon dioxide reductions?
    Mrs. Taylor: I am sure that members of the Select Committee will note by hon. Friend's comments. Later this summer the Government will publish a wide-ranging and open consultation paper on policy options for meeting the Kyoto target and moving towards our domestic aim of a 20 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2010. A great number of people will wish to respond to and take part in that consultation process; I am sure that my hon. Friend will wish to do so, too.

    Recesses
    Mr. Simon Burns: If she will make a statement about synchronising parliamentary recesses with school holidays and half-terms. [45255]
    The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons: I hope shortly to submit a memorandum to the Modernisation Committee which will deal with this subject, as part of what I have already described as the parliamentary calendar.
    Mr. Burns: I am grateful for that reply. When she makes her submission, will the right hon. Lady remember

    699
    that the timetable of the House of Commons does not always dovetail perfectly with school terms? Given that 516 hon. Members have children, a large minority of them of school age, and given the intolerable burdens of our life style in this place, will she do all she can to dovetail our recesses with school holidays so that Members can see more of their children?
    Mrs. Taylor: I am extremely sympathetic to that suggestion. I know that many Members with families feel that we could sometimes order our timetable better at no inconvenience to the House—but for the convenience of Members. There are, however, certain problems: not all school holidays in England coincide, and Scottish holidays are different again.
    I hope to touch on this problem in the paper that I submit, although there are no easy solutions. No doubt the Modernisation Committee will try to come up with some recommendations.
    Mr. John Maxton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Scottish schools finish term at the end of this week and that many Members, if they have children at school or spouses who are teachers, will be highly inconvenienced? Will she take that into account when considering the parliamentary year?
    Mrs. Taylor: Not only Scottish schools, but schools in towns such as Burnley will start their annual holidays soon. It will not ever be possible to satisfy all hon. Members on the matter, but it is possible to try to rationalise the situation and make improvements without jeopardising parliamentary business.

    Morning Sittings
    Mr. David Hanson: What progress she is making with regard to introducing additional morning sittings of the House. [45256]
    The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons: This matter also will be included among the issues in the Modernisation Committee's consideration of the parliamentary calendar.
    Mr. Hanson: Will my right hon. Friend accept that there is a compelling case for morning sittings, certainly on Tuesdays and Thursdays, which would enable better consideration of private Members' Bills, an early return to their constituencies for hon. Members such as me with northern constituencies and perhaps more opportunities for Ministers to take questions on the Floor of the House?
    Mrs. Taylor: I do not want to pre-empt anything that might be in the report that goes to the Modernisation Committee. There are pros and cons of morning sittings and difficulties in terms of duplicating work in Committee and on the Floor of the House. The Modernisation Committee will want to consider all those matters. I hope that the memorandum that I shall publish will help hon. Members to concentrate their thoughts on practical solutions to those problems.

Factory Fire (Ballymoney)
3.30 pm
Rev. Ian Paisley: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether she will make a statement on the burning of the Lovell and Christmas factory in Ballymoney on Saturday 20 June, the effect that this disaster will have on local employment and the impact on the Northern Ireland pig industry.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office: The Lovell and Christmas pig processing factory at Ballymoney was extensively damaged by fire on Saturday 20 June. I understand that the cause of the fire has not yet been established, but the House will want to know that there is no evidence of terrorist involvement. The fire is a serious event for the Malton Bacon company, which is part of the Unigate UK group which owns the factory, for the employees, and for the Northern Ireland pig industry in general.
Officials have been in contact with the company since the fire. The company has told us that, in conjunction with its insurers and advisers, it is assessing the problem in terms of its work force and operational requirements. Understandably, it wants to do that before making decisions about the future of the plant. It hopes to complete that process within the next few days, and to inform the work force of its plans as quickly as possible. In the meanwhile, the work force has been sent home on full pay, initially for the rest of the week.
Pig production and processing is an important sector of the Northern Ireland agrifood industry, which employs 2,500 people at processing plants and a further 1,300 people on farms. The Lovell and Christmas factory at Ballymoney had been slaughtering 13,000 pigs a week, which is roughly 40 per cent. of the average weekly pig slaughterings in Northern Ireland. Of that number, approximately two thirds were sourced from Northern Ireland producers. At this early stage, it is not possible to say with certainty what impact this event will have on local employment and the local pig industry, but it is clear that there is a significant potential problem in the short term as to how to deal with the pigs that are on farm and will be ready for slaughter over the next days and weeks.
I understand that representatives of the industry are currently addressing how that difficulty might be overcome, taking account of the slaughtering capacity available at the other three major pig processing plants in Northern Ireland. I welcome the fact that the industry is co-operating in that way.
I emphasise to the House that the Government fully recognise the potentially serious implications of the fire. Staff from the Department of Agriculture were at the site even before the fire was extinguished. Officials from the Department of Agriculture and the Industrial Development Board have been in contact with company representatives at the highest level to assist in overcoming the difficulties arising from the fire.
I am aware that the pig sector has been experiencing the same difficult trading conditions as other parts of the industry, in Northern Ireland and in the rest of the country. The fire represents an additional problem. The Lovell and Christmas factory is important to the pig industry in Northern Ireland, and I pay tribute to the significant work
702
which the company had put into developing the scale of operation at the site, and the investment in the plant structure and facilities before the fire.
The company has undertaken to inform officials immediately it has developed its thinking on the future of the plant. The Department of Agriculture and the IDB will continue to work closely with the company and the industry to offer whatever assistance they can in dealing with the problem.
I pay tribute to the work of the Northern Ireland Fire Service, which dealt with the outbreak with the skill and courage that it has shown in Northern Ireland on so many occasions over the years.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I thank the Minister for that very full statement, which will prove to the people of Northern Ireland that his Government are taking the matter very seriously. I am sure that he will agree that such an accident, in an important factory that has just launched into more than –10 million of expenditure, is a terrible tragedy. He will understand the feelings of the workers as they stood outside the plant on Saturday, watching their future go up in flames. I am sure that he will want to assure them that the Government will do everything in their power—although I accept that that power is limited in this matter—to encourage the plant owners to rebuild and get the factory operating again on the site.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is now a huge gap in the indigenous pig processing industry. Some 40 per cent. of all pigs slaughtered in Northern Ireland are slaughtered at that factory. Something must be done urgently if we are not to lose our indigenous pig processing industry.
I associate myself with the Minister's remarks about the firefighters, who did an excellent job against terrible odds. I am sure that the House will want to convey our wishes for a speedy recovery to the one person who was injured and the two people who suffered severe shock.
Will the hon. Gentleman assure the management of the company that their work is appreciated? We hope that they can pay all their suppliers this week, so that the farmers will not run out of cash.
Mr. Murphy: I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance he seeks, in so far as I can do so. The House is aware that between 300 and 400 people are employed at the plant, which is the biggest employer in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. It is a major tragedy for his area, and also for the rest of Northern Ireland, especially the agricultural sector.
As I said in my statement, officials in both Departments are prepared to do all they can to help, and will consider whatever sort of help may be needed. Of course, it depends on what the company has in mind for the future of the plant. My noble Friend Lord Dubs has been in touch with officials on this matter. If the hon. Gentleman and other Northern Ireland Members want meetings with him or with my other ministerial colleagues, they will be most welcome.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: Will the Minister be good enough to convey the Opposition's concern and good wishes to all who work at Lovell and Christmas—and, for that matter, the people of Ballymoney, who must be extremely worried following that dreadful fire?

703
We are grateful, as the people of Ballymoney will be, for the positive answer that the hon. Gentleman has given to the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley). We are pleased to note that the Minister and his officials will do everything possible to ensure that a new plant is built, and that it does not go elsewhere in the United Kingdom or Europe. Can he give us an assurance that that will be the case—or, at the very least, that he will continue to use his best endeavours to ensure that it is the case?
Mr. Murphy: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. As more than 40 per cent. of pig processing in Northern Ireland was carried out at that plant, it is vital that the plant remains in Northern Ireland. That is uppermost in everybody's mind. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments, which I will pass on to the plant's management.
Mr. Jim Murphy(Eastwood): On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: I will deal with the hon. Gentleman's point of order later.

Official Report
3.39 pm
Madam Speaker: I have some information that I need to give to the House. On 18 June, the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) raised a point of order concerning exchanges between the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister on 6 May. His concern was that the text of the Official Report did not accurately reflect what the Prime Minister had said. Later in the day, the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and other hon. Members referred in debate to the same issue.
I wish to remind the House that the Official Report is intended to be a full report of proceedings in the House. A full report is defined in "Erskine May" as one
"which, though not strictly verbatim, is substantially the verbatim report, with repetitions and redundancies omitted and with obvious mistakes corrected, but which on the other hand leaves out nothing that adds to the meaning of the speech or illustrates the argument".
The Editor of the Official Report is responsible for ensuring the accuracy of the report. He would not entertain any attempt by any hon. Member, however eminent, to alter the substance of what was said. He has confirmed to me that on 6 May neither the Prime Minister nor anyone acting for him or on his behalf made any such attempt. The changes that were made to the Prime Minister's words on 6 May were made by the Editor in fulfilment of his responsibilities. He is of the opinion that the changes in no way altered the sense of what the Prime Minister said. I shall publish the Editor's letter in the Official Report.
It is a well-established rule of the House that the Official Report is the authoritative record of what is said, and that tapes cannot be used for the purposes of casting doubt on the validity of the Official Report. Nevertheless, I have thought it right, in view of the sensitivity of this issue, to listen to the tape and to compare it with the Official Report in order to satisfy myself about the accuracy of the record. I must tell the House that it is clear to me that the Official Report is an entirely accurate account of the substance of the Prime Minister's remarks, and that nothing that added to the meaning was omitted.
Hon. Members may be aware that on Friday my office issued a short factual statement to the press together with the Editor's letter. I thought it right to do so, since my concern is at all times and in every situation for the integrity of this House, its procedures and its status. It would have been wrong for these to be left in doubt a moment longer than was absolutely necessary. That is my ruling.
Following is the text of the Editor's letter:
"Dear Madam Speaker,
Mr Peter Robinson raised a point of order with you this afternoon in respect of our report of the Prime Minister's reply to Mr Hague on 6 May last at column 711 about the release of prisoners in Northern Ireland.
I can confirm that certain words were deleted. That deletion was carried out by us. Neither the Prime Minister nor anyone acting for him or on his behalf either requested that deletion or had any hand in making it.
The Prime Minister's exact words were:
`What is essential is that any agreement must be signed up to in full, as we said, and the answer to his question is yes of course it is the case that, both in respect of taking seats in the government of

705
Northern Ireland and in respect of the early release of prisoners, the only organisations that qualify for that are organisations that have given up violence and given it up for good.'
Fully in accordance with the requirement that the House places upon Hansard, and in compliance with Hansard's terms of reference as set out in Erskine May, that sentence of 73 words was edited. That was done in order to make it read better, a task that the House has traditionally entrusted to the Hansard reporters. The change in no way altered the sense of what the Prime Minister said and in my judgment cannot be criticised on that ground.
In raising his point of order with you, Mr Robinson repeated the words but not in the way that the Prime Minister uttered them, and that is a crucial difference. If, as Mr Robinson implied, we had left out the sentence 'The answer to his question is yes.', he would indeed have a point of substance. However, those words did not constitute a complete and self-contained sentence; they were a part of a much larger sentence, and they must be read in that fuller context, not removed from it.
I know that I do not need to remind you that Hansard is a full report, not a verbatim report. It has a discretion to amend the words as spoken, acting within the authority of its terms of reference, which state that
'though not strictly verbatim, [it] is substantially the verbatim report, with repetitions and redundancies omitted and with obvious mistakes corrected, but which on the other hand leaves out nothing that adds to the meaning of the speech or illustrates the argument.'
I suggest that the change that was made was completely in conformity with that description.
Yours sincerely,
Ian Church,
Editor.

Points of Order
3.43 pm
Mr. Nicholas Soames: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You have previously taken a robust line on the answering of written questions. May I draw to your attention an answer that I received on Friday—four days after I tabled it? I asked the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what were the aims and objectives of his policy on tourism and what the achievements of those policies had been since 1 May. He had four days to answer that question, and the reply I received was that he would reply to me as soon as possible. It seems to me a little odd that, when plenty of notice was given, a Department of a Government with such an enormous majority in the House of Commons was unable to answer in four days a written question on the aims and objectives of the Government's policy on tourism. Could you, Madam Speaker, have a word with the Leader of the House and ask her to instruct Ministers that, when possible, answers must be given on the due date?
Madam Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me an indication of his point of order. I have dealt with such matters on a number of occasions—I think that the last time was on 11 June. My advice to Ministers on answering written questions is exactly the same as the advice I give on answering supplementary questions to oral questions. As the hon. Gentleman will be the first to appreciate, the satisfaction of the questioner cannot always be guaranteed by the answer. Sometimes hon. Members are not happy and are quite disappointed with the answers they receive. That has always been the case. The hon. Gentleman is concerned that it took four days to answer his question. Many points of order are raised by hon. Members who complain that it takes a long time to answer questions. I do not know whether four days is a long time, or four weeks. I cannot guarantee that all hon. Members will be satisfied by the answers to their questions, but there are several senior Ministers on the Treasury Bench, and they will have noted what the hon. Gentleman has to say.
Mr. Soames: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I do not wish to push you any further, but I am used to being terribly dissatisfied with the answers that I receive, and it is not that of which I complain. I am complaining that I did not get an answer. Four days after I had tabled the question, I received no answer as to the aims and objectives of a Government Department. That seems grossly casual and disrespectful to Parliament.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Just to put the record straight, I remember dealing with the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) when he was an Agriculture Minister and the lives of four farmers were placed in jeopardy because of the Coalite matter. I made representations to the hon. Gentleman, his senior Minister and all the rest of the gang. It took me six months or more even to get a meeting. When I brought a busload of people from Bolsover, the hon. Gentleman complained because there were too many.
Madam Speaker: I think that that answers the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames).
Mr. Jim Murphy: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance on an investigation by Grampian police fraud squad into allegations of abuse and fraud against a Moray councillor who also happens to be a candidate for the Scottish Parliament. Have you received a request from any member of the Scottish National party to come to the House to clarify these important accusations, so that we set the record straight once and for all?
Madam Speaker: No, I have not received such a request from any hon. Member.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Further to your statement earlier, Madam Speaker. I apologise for the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), but he did write to tell you that he would be unable to be here.
The only matter that perturbs me is that the Editor of Hansard now has the right to say that nothing is going to be left out from or added to what is said in the verbatim report. I wonder whether an affirmation such as "yes" is not something that should be in the report. I appreciate the fact that you issued the letter. It is a good thing that we have that letter, and I know that my hon. Friend agrees with me. However, it will perturb some hon. Members if the sole authority rests with the Editor of Hansard to say whether he has edited a speech in such a way that it is as strong as it was at the beginning.
Madam Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I have gone as far as I can in giving my ruling, which was very clear. I also took into account precedents before I gave the information to the House, but I have heard what the hon. Gentleman is concerned about.

WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 107 (Welsh Grand Committee),
That the matter of the New Economic Agenda for Wales, being a matter relating exclusively to Wales, be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for its consideration.—[Mr. Clelland.]
Question agreed to.

CRIME AND DISORDER BILL [LORDS] (PROGRAMME)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee),
That the Report [2nd June] from the Business Committee be now considered.—[Mr.Clelland.]
Question agreed to.
Report considered accordingly.
Resolved,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in its resolution.—[Mr. Clelland.]
Following is the report of the Business Committee [18 June]:
That—

(1) the order in which proceedings on Consideration are to be taken shall be, New Clause 10, New Clause 11, New Clause 1, remaining New Clauses, Amendments to Clauses, new Schedules, Amendments to Schedules;

(2) the days allotted under the Order [16th June] to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be allotted in the manner shown in the following Table and each part of the proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion (in accordance with the Order) at the time specified in relation to that part of the proceedings in the third column of the Table.

TABLE

Allotted day

Proceedings

Time for conclusion of proceedings

First day

New Clause 10, New Clause 11

Three and a half hours after commencement

New Clause 1 (including any Amendments to it selected by the Speaker)

Six and a half hours after commencement

Second day

Remaining new Clauses, Amendments to Clauses, new Schedules, Amendments to Schedules, Third Reading

Six and a half hours after commencement

Report to lie upon the Table.
Madam Speaker: Before we come to the main business of the House, hon. Members might like to know that there is a guidance note as to when Divisions will fall and amendments will be called. It is in the No Lobby. Hon. Members who are interested will find it all in there.

Orders of the Day
  Crime and Disorder Bill [Lords]
  As amended in the Committee, considered.
  Crime and Disorder Bill [Lords]
    New clause 10

      FOOTBALL BEHAVIOUR ORDER
      —(1) If it appears to a chief officer of police that the following condition is fulfilled with respect to any person in his police area, namely that the person has acted in such a way as to give reasonable cause to believe that an order under this section is necessary to prevent him disturbing good order at any designated football match outside the United Kingdom or during the period before or after any designated football match outside the United Kingdom, he may apply for a football behaviour order in respect of that person.
      (2) Such an application shall be made by complaint to any magistrates' court.
      (3) If, on such an application, it is proved that the condition mentioned in subsection (1) is fulfilled, the magistrates' court may make an order which prevents the defendant from doing anything described in the order.
      (4) The prohibitions that may be imposed by a football behaviour order are those necessary for the purpose of maintaining good order at any designated football match outside the United Kingdom or during the period before or after any designated football match outside the United Kingdom.
      (5) A football behaviour order shall have effect for a period (not less than five years) specified in the order or until further order.
      (6) Subject to subsection (7) below, the applicant or defendant may apply by complaint to the court which made a football behaviour order for it to be varied or discharged by a further order.
      (7) Except with the consent of both parties, no football behaviour order shall be discharged before the end of the period of five years beginning with the date of the service of the order.
      (8) The acts referred to in subsection (1) above include acts committed outside the United Kingdom.
      (9) The period referred to in subsections (1) and (4) above means a period of two weeks.
      (10) The football matches referred to in subsections (1) and (4) above are football matches designated under the Football Spectators Act 1989.
      (11) If without reasonable excuse a person does anything which he is prohibited from doing by a football behaviour order, he shall be liable—

      (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both; or

      (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to a fine, or to both.'.—[Sir Norman Fowler.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      3.49 pm
      Sir Norman Fowler: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 11—Amendment of Football Spectators Act—
      `.—(1) The Football Spectators Act shall be amended as follows.
      (2) For subsection (1) of section 15, there shall be substituted the following subsections —
      "(1) A court by or before which a person is convicted of a relevant offence or, if a person convicted of such an offence is committed to it to be dealt with, the Crown
      710
      Court on dealing with him for the offence shall make a restriction order in relation to him unless there are exceptional circumstances in relation to the offence which justify its not doing so.
      (IA) Where a court does not make a restriction order under subsection (1) above it shall state in open court what the exceptional circumstances are."
      (3) Subsection (2) of section 15 shall cease to have effect.
      (4) In section 16, there shall be inserted the following subsection—
      "(4A) A constable may arrest without warrant any person whom he reasonably believes to have failed or to be about to fail to comply with the duty to report imposed by a conviction order."
      (5) In subsection (5) of section 16, substitute "six months" for "one month" and "level 5" for "level 3".'.
      Government new clause 12—Football spectators: failure to comply with reporting duty.
      Government amendment No. 166.
      Sir Norman Fowler: I shall not spend a great deal of time painting in the background and stating the reasons why we have tabled new clause 10. Last week, the vast majority of this country felt shame at the behaviour in Marseilles of so-called English supporters—who comprised only a small number of the English people in Marseilles, and in no way represented genuine English football supporters, any more than they represented the people of this country itself.
      Nevertheless, we saw for ourselves the damage that was done and the violence that was committed. It is not something that was got up by the press. The evidence was there, and, throughout last week, it was seen on television newscasts by millions of people in the United Kingdom. Not surprisingly, there was a genuine sense of outrage and anger in this country at what those thugs had done, not least to this country's reputation.
      It is easy enough to condemn the events in Marseilles, but the more difficult matter is to make proposals aimed at ensuring that such events do not happen again. The Opposition have sought to meet that task. I should say straight away that it is very unlikely that any system of defence that we erect will be able to exclude every football hooligan and thug going abroad to international matches. However, equally beyond doubt is the fact that the current position and regulations are not working effectively enough.
      As far as I am concerned—I am not wedded to a particular form of drafting in our proposals—we will co-operate to the fullest with the Government to achieve a better and workable solution. I am committed to improving the current position.
      The violence at Marseilles graphically illustrated some of the defects in our defences against hooligans and thugs. It was clear, for example, that, although some of those going to Marseilles may not have had convictions for football-related offences, they had been convicted of other offences of violence that might well have brought them under police suspicion. It was equally clear that people's convictions for football-related offences involving violence, drink or damage to property have not been accompanied by restriction orders to prevent convicted offenders from going to overseas matches.
      Last week, in Hansard, in answer to a parliamentary question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth), the Home Office revealed figures

      711
      showing that, in the past five years, there had been 20,000 convictions for football-related offences, whereas only 71 people are currently subject to restriction orders under the Football Spectators Act 1989.
      The obvious question to ask is, how will we deal with the problems? I shall start by explaining our proposals to make restriction orders more effective, as stated in our new clause 11. However, I should say first that I very much welcome the action taken by the Government in tabling new clause 12, which effectively accepts several of the main points that we have made. I reiterate that our objective is to achieve a permanent improvement in the situation. We are much more likely to accomplish that objective if the Government have an open mind on the type of proposals being made by the Opposition.
      I think that we can now take it that some of the arguments used in 1989, in the debate on Second Reading of the Football Spectators Bill—that football hooliganism was simply a product of the previous Government—have now been proved spectacularly inaccurate as a diagnosis, and that the issue of violence confronts any Government, of whatever political complexion.
      In our first proposal, new clause 11, we seek to increase the deterrent value of restriction orders. It seemed to us that such deterrence would not be achieved if a maximum sentence of one month was available in dealing with someone who ignored a restriction order. We suggested that six months should be substituted, and I am glad that the Government have accepted that in new clause 12.
      We went beyond that point, however. A few months ago, just after Christmas 1997, the Home Secretary announced that he had reminded the courts of the power to impose restriction orders on those convicted of football-related offences. Unhappily, perhaps, the Home Office chose to headline his press statement of that date "Britain takes the lead against football hooligans". On reflection, the Home Secretary might feel that perhaps that was not the happiest way of describing his plans. Nor was it a case of everyone being wise after the event.
      On the same day as the Home Secretary announced his plans, Detective Inspector Peter Chapman, who heads the National Criminal Intelligence Service's hooliganism unit at Scotland Yard, pointed to one obvious defect. He said that, under the legislation, police could not arrest a convicted hooligan until he had failed to report to a police station at an appointed time, usually during a match. He said:
      "The nonsense of it is that I can see that individual pass through Heathrow four, five or six hours earlier knowing full well that he is going to that particular football match and can't do anything about it. I don't have the power to stop him."
      Therefore, in subsection (4) of the new clause, we have sought to make it possible for a constable to arrest a person
      "whom he reasonably believes to have failed or to be about to fail to comply with the duty to report imposed by a conviction order."
      The Government have also accepted that principle in new clause 12, and I welcome that.
      The question that remains is whether those two additions are enough to deal with the threat we face. It seems self-evident that the answer must be no. Currently there are only 71 restriction orders in existence. There are still the best part of 20,000 people convicted of football offences in the past five years who are not subject
      712
      to restriction orders. If we are to make the restriction order system more effective—I suggest that that is precisely what our aim should be—we have to tackle that issue, too.
      The new clause proposes to make it obligatory on the courts to grant such a restriction order unless there are exceptional circumstances against doing so. I am quite prepared to listen to arguments that, for example, make it obligatory upon the court to consider making a restriction order or any other practical way forward. However, the evidence suggests strongly that the present system is not working effectively.
      Of course it is true that many of those who took part in the riots in Marseilles had not been convicted of football-related offences. I do not deny that, and I shall return to the point in respect of our other new clause. However, it seems essential that, as well as any additional measures we take, we should ensure that the present system of restriction orders works better and more effectively than it does at present. Our proposal is designed to ensure that, when a court convicts a person of a football-related offence, it is under a greater obligation to consider the case for making a restriction order. That is the principle that we are seeking to enforce.
      I hope that the Home Secretary will be able to move towards us on the issue. It seems a pity that, having accepted so much of new clause 11, he did not take that further step.
      I now turn to new clause 10—the football behaviour order. It seeks to widen the powers of the police in applying to a court for a restriction order. It owes something to other measures that are already in the Crime and Disorder Bill, such as the anti-social behaviour order.
      I do not entirely understand the point that the Prime Minister made on the subject during Prime Minister's Question Time last Wednesday. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest that we were in some way opposed to the anti-social behaviour orders. That is not the case. No reasonable person could come to that conclusion. We could not have done more to allow the Bill through. We did not vote against it on Second Reading, in contrast to the attitude of the then Labour Opposition in 1989 to the Football Spectators Bill, when they voted for a reasoned amendment and voted against Second Reading.
      4 pm
      In Committee, we sought to establish whether the Government's proposed anti-social behaviour orders would work. That is not unreasonable. Several legal academics had claimed that the orders were contrary to the European convention on human rights. We have to consider whether they would be effective. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) said in Committee:
      "One of the main purposes of the amendments is to ascertain whether the provision is workable, and whether it helps deal with the problems in practice."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 28 April 1998; c. 20.]
      That is unquestionably the function of any Opposition. I am amazed that the Prime Minister should seek to challenge it.
      I am not wedded to the exact wording of the new clause. I am committed to the principle of strengthening our position and the action that we can take against football hooligans moving abroad. Again, that is not a new point.

      713
      The day after the Home Secretary's announcement at Christmas time, Mr. Richard Ford, following an excellent tradition as home affairs correspondent of The Times, reported that the police were demanding that the Government should make it compulsory for anyone convicted of football-related violence to be barred from travelling abroad as a supporter. He wrote that the police were expressing serious doubts over the Home Secretary's plan, and said that a key part of the legislation was flawed. According to the report, the police called for an order barring travel abroad to support England to be made a mandatory part of any sentence imposed on an offender convicted of football-related violence.
      That takes us back to new clause 11. An alternative approach would be to allow the police to go to court when they had reasonable cause to believe that an order was necessary to prevent an individual disturbing good order at a football match outside the United Kingdom. Who would be covered by that? The first group is those almost 20,000 who have been convicted of football-related offences but have had no restriction orders placed on them. The police may believe that, if such people travelled overseas to a game, there would be a serious risk that they would cause disturbance and damage. The new clause would allow the police to go to court to put that case. The decision would rest with the court, but the police would be allowed to make the case.
      Mr. Andrew Lansley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that smaller in number, but with an even greater reason to be included in the football behaviour orders, are those against whom exclusion orders have been made in the United Kingdom? There is a powerful case for them to be covered. There are several times more such people than are presently covered by restriction orders.
      Sir Norman Fowler: Indeed. I shall come to that. The factors to be taken into account should be in the Bill, rather than allowing total discretion. I have no difficulty with that proposition. As my hon. Friend says, many groups might be included.
      Mr. John Bercow: I recognise that subsections (5) and (7) of new clause 10 refer to the order applying for not less than five years. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are circumstances in which it might be appropriate at the outset, on the strength of an appalling track record of behaviour, to impose an order lasting longer than that—potentially for life?
      Sir Norman Fowler: The only trouble with this debate is that one is attacked both ways. Sometimes I am attacked for being too severe, and—although "attacked" is the wrong way to put it—my hon. Friend suggests that I am being too lenient. In the spirit of our approach to the matter, we would listen to any argument. One can foresee circumstances in which five years might be lenient, but it is not an unreasonable figure, and relates to the restriction orders and the 20,000 people could potentially be covered by them but are not covered at the moment.
      The order would allow the police to go to court and say that an individual, although he had not been convicted of a football-related offence, had been convicted of some other
      714
      offence, perhaps a crime of violence, and was therefore likely to pose a danger if he went to an overseas match. The decision would be taken by the court, but the police would be empowered to show that the individual's past criminal conviction would lead a reasonable man to the conclusion that there was a substantial risk that his presence at a football match would lead to violence or to other disturbance.
      The new clause would enable the police to go to court even if the individual concerned had not been convicted up to then of a serious offence. Those who think that that is one step too far should look at the detail of the anti-social behaviour orders. The powers being given by the orders do not require a conviction for a previous offence to be established. Indeed, it would be extremely difficult to see how that could be the case if an order were to be effective.
      In dealing with football hooligans, the police may not want to reveal the intelligence that they have gathered on an individual who, although he is without a conviction, nevertheless presents a serious and real threat. The police may be reluctant to put that intelligence information to the court, and would prefer to deal with the matter by means of sensible co-operation between one police force and another.
      If that is the case, I am entirely content that reasonable cause should be linked to past offences, but that those past offences should include not only football-related offences but others. In other words, the measure would not be entirely exclusive to football-related offences. It would then be up to the court to decide how relevant the offences were to the decision.
      Mr. Dennis Skinner: The thing that worries me about the debate—this applies to the Government as well as to the Opposition—is that, once we start talking about anti-social behaviour, giving the police extreme powers and not merely football-related hooligan offences but football-related offences, I wonder where it will stop.
      Would the measure have anything to do with people like Cantona? What about people like Tony Adams, who has been charged with serious offences and is now performing well on the field for England? Would it have anything to do with somebody like Stan Collymore? I am trying to suggest—not only to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield, but to my right hon. and hon. Friends—that, if we give the police those tremendous powers, we will finish up with half a football team.
      Sir Norman Fowler: I take the point that the hon. Gentleman makes in his customary manner. However, we are not dealing with the members of football teams in the amendment—that is, unless they are going out on to the streets of Marseilles to riot and cause damage, which seems an unlikely event, and so far one which has not been suggested. I should point out gently to the hon. Gentleman that his wider concerns go to the heart of the Bill.
      The anti-social behaviour orders, among others, give the police greater powers, but our proposals are more limited. They would deal specifically with football hooliganism, which was so offensively illustrated last

      715
      week, as everyone saw, and to which the proposals are not an unreasonable response. They would not give the police unchecked—
      Mr. Skinner: It sounds like they would.
      Sir Norman Fowler: They would not—the police would have to ask the court to make an order, and the court would have to make its decision on the basis of the application.
      Mr. Joe Ashton: One of the problems is that exclusion orders and restriction orders have loopholes. If the right hon. Gentleman says at the Dispatch Box what those loopholes are, all the villains will learn about them. Indeed, many of them already know about the loopholes; they travel by different routes, or four people drive an old van with another person stuck in the back, for example. It is easy, in a mass exodus, for people to get around court orders.
      Sir Norman Fowler: As I said at the outset—I know the hon. Gentleman was here—I do not think that either we or the Government would claim that there was any guarantee that a football hooligan or thug could be excluded from a match; that would be impossible under any law. However, I believe that the current situation could be improved. The effectiveness of our system—again, I do not think that there is anything between us and the Government on this—is brought into question by the fact that, in the past five years, 20,000 people have been convicted of football-related offences, but only 71 restriction orders have been made.
      I hope that I have said enough to demonstrate the seriousness not only of the threat that I believe such people pose, but of the Opposition's approach to that threat. We are grateful to the Home Secretary for taking up two of our proposals, but we hope that he will use the principles that are set out in the other proposals as the foundation for other measures. I do not believe that we can rely only on the two measures that he has accepted; we need to do more if we are to have a realistic prospect of dealing with these people, and that must include giving more powers not only to the police but to the courts, which would have to take decisions.
      Parenthetically, I raise another issue, about which I wrote to the Home Secretary over the weekend. Last week, the Prime Minister suggested that, on returning to this country, convicted football hooligans should be disciplined by their employers and perhaps sacked. I do not want to dispute the deterrent value of that as an immediate measure, although the last thing we want is for those people to be kept at the taxpayers' expense on social security. However, in the range of action that is open to us, certainly over the next few weeks, the suggestion could provide a reasonable deterrent.
      In the medium term, we need to examine how we can progress beyond that. My basic belief is that people who have been found guilty of causing damage overseas—in this case,France—should be required to make reparation to help to pay for the damage that they have caused. As I understand it, the French have a criminal claims compensation scheme. I see no reason why convicted offenders who have caused damage overseas should not pay into that scheme, which would require some system
      716
      of attachment of earnings for convicted offenders on their return to work in this country. That would best be done by an agreement between the United Kingdom and France. We are talking about an important principle—offenders should be required to pay for the damage that they have caused.
      I would welcome the guidance of the Home Secretary on that issue, but above all I would welcome his response to the issues that we have set out with the aim of strengthening our defences against the actions of hooligans overseas, who have done a great deal in the past week to damage the reputation of English soccer.
      4.15 pm
      The Secretary of State for the Home Department: First, I thank the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) for the manner in which he spoke to his new clauses on an important and current issue. I also thank him for tabling them, even though they will use up valuable Opposition time.
      I echo the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, and place on the record, as I did last Monday, the abhorrence of all decent people in this country, who were angry as well as shocked to see the disgraceful scenes involving a relatively small number of English so-called supporters in Marseilles.
      The world cup tournament France '98 is plainly enormously important for this country and, in particular, for those who reside in two of its nations—Scotland and England—or who support those teams. It is a great sporting festival and we want it to be remembered as such. As a Government, our aim has always been to promote it as an enjoyable and safe tournament for law-abiding supporters from England and Scotland. Regrettably, that has meant that we have had to spend a huge amount of time and effort on the small minority of hooligans who want to cause trouble and disrupt things.
      Before dealing with the specific points that the right hon. Gentleman raised, I must remind the House of what we have been doing to lay plans to combat hooliganism in France and ensure, as far as possible, that the games are as peaceful and enjoyable as they can be. As soon as we took office last May, we entered into immediate discussions, which continued through the summer, about preparations for the world cup. Last October, the Prime Minister asked me to co-ordinate those efforts and to establish a world cup co-ordinating group.
      Within that group, all parties—Government, police and footballing associations—have worked together on all matters affecting supporters going to France and, obviously, those attending games. In doing so, we have had three main aims. The first was to ensure that the world cup is first and foremost a sporting festival. The second was to promote the interests of respectable football supporters and prevent a hooligan minority from bringing disgrace to our country, as, sadly, they did last weekend. The third was to work closely with our French counterparts to achieve those aims.
      In March, we published a detailed action plan, which we sent to all hon. Members and which received wide approval. It set out the measures that we have taken to achieve those objectives. That action plan had two distinct and simple purposes. The first was to provide the decent supporter with the confidence of knowing that the British and French authorities are properly looking after their

      717
      interests and welfare. We need to remember that thousands of supporters are going to the games to support our teams, and it is partly their vigorous, but peaceful, support in the stadium that makes a significant difference to the morale, and therefore, we hope, the success, of the English and Scottish teams.
      In saying that, I pay my tribute to Sir Michael Jay, the British ambassador in France, and all his staff, whom I know from my many visits to the embassy in Paris. They have worked tirelessly, in some cases full time on this matter, with the consular authorities in Marseilles, Boulogne and elsewhere in France to ensure that good arrangements were in hand to look after the interests of the decent supporter and traveller in France.
      The second purpose of the action plan was to provide clear and unambiguous warnings to the hooligan that his behaviour would not be tolerated. I had many discussions, beginning at the Justice and Home Affairs Council of the European Union in May 1997, with my two opposite numbers, M. Jean-Pierre Chevenement, the French Minister of the Interior, and Elizabeth Guigou, the Minister of Justice—although most of the responsibility is M. Chevènement's.
      We discussed ways in which we could greatly improve co-operation between ourselves and the French. I am pleased that the French authorities indicated early that they would apply the law firmly to those who chose to break it. From the first, we gave full support to that approach, and we welcomed the statement, which has been proved by events, that prosecutions would follow for those who broke the law, and that, in many cases, imprisonment would be the immediate punishment for those found guilty before French courts.
      Our co-operation with the French Government, police and other authorities has been excellent. The Football Association and the Scottish Football Association paid preliminary visits with their security advisers to the places where their teams would play and stay. Equally important, senior police officers from England and Scotland visited the various match venues well in advance to see the layout of towns and grounds. They have also shared our expertise on policing and crowd safety, and have established close and successful working contacts with their French colleagues.
      At the end of February, in, I am proud to say, Blackburn, at Ewood park, one of the founding homes of world football—Blackburn Rovers was one of the 12 founding teams of the English Football League, without which there would be no world cup—I hosted the European Union's seminar on the policing of football. It was a successful and well-attended event at which representatives of football associations and police authorities across the EU shared experience and advice, and developed good contacts with French counterparts, including Dominique Spinosi, who heads the French organising committee, and George Querry, a senior official from the French Ministry of the Interior who is dealing with the world cup.
      Mr. Nicholas Soames: I congratulate the Home Secretary on the extensive co-operation that took place beforehand, and I associate myself with his remarks about Sir Michael Jay and his colleagues in Paris.
      718
      However, will the right hon. Gentleman say how many of the hooligans who were convicted following the unspeakable events and behaviour of a very small minority in Marseilles were already known to the police, and had been identified to the French police as known troublemakers?
      Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but we made an early decision not to give that kind of information, for reasons that will, I think, be readily understood. I can say, however, that it was obvious to the police that a large number of those involved during the initial stages of the trouble in Marseilles were not previously known to, for example, the National Criminal Intelligence Service.
      We agreed with the French that British football intelligence police officers— spotters—would work in France during the tournament. I must make it clear that it is for the French to police the world cup, and not for us. We must respect the facts that France has different traditions of policing, and that the French police are autonomous in their own country. The French agreed that spotters could act as a vital source of information on which they could act, and those intelligence officers have been operating successfully. Discussion about their precise role and their numbers continues.
      It is important that there should be flexibility, and we intend to ensure that the French authorities receive all the targeted help that they request, and we can provide. I emphasise that one sovereign country may make a request of another, if it wishes to have police officers on its soil acting in any kind of operational, or even advisory, capacity. The House will accept that it would be inappropriate for me to go into further details, particularly of the number of our police officers who are present.
      The French are organising their police operation nationally through a co-ordination centre in Paris. British police, including some from the NCIS, are present at that centre. I express my thanks for the enormous amount of willing assistance that we have had from the authorities in France over important policing questions. Both we and the French officials were worried about whether arrangements for collaboration would stand the test of the front line when trouble broke out. I am pleased to say that that has been the case so far.
      Mr. Lansley: I understand why the Home Secretary does not wish to provide detailed information of the kind requested by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames). However, given the reliance placed on the NCIS in this country, the notification provided to French authorities of those who might be suspected of being involved in football hooliganism and the lack of evidence regarding those who were actually involved in much of the hooliganism that occurred in Marseilles, what conclusions can the Home Secretary draw from the events in Marseilles?
      Mr. Straw: I am sorry, but I did not entirely follow the hon. Gentleman's question. I shall give way to him again if he is not satisfied with my answer. It is true that some of those involved in the trouble in Marseilles were not known to the NCIS. I am afraid that it is in the nature of the human condition that not all people who are about to commit crimes are known to the police—would that that were the case; it would make my job and that of the police very much easier.

      719
      The NCIS, which was established by the previous Government, placed on a statutory framework under the Police Act 1997 and brought into force under this Government, is envied across the world because of the great skill and professionalism that it brings to bear on criminal intelligence. Almost uniquely—although I was told in my grammar lessons that something is either unique or it is not—the NCIS combines all law enforcement agencies, such as the police, Customs and Excise, and many other agencies that operate in this country, in a single resource for the pursuit of criminal activity in whatever form.
      I shall give an example of the extent of the co-operation between Britain and France. I signed and brought into force on 1 June the bilateral agreement with France so that convictions for football-related offences in France could trigger restriction orders in the British courts. If I had not been able to do that, and if I had not received that co-operation from our French counterparts, much of our discussion about how we could effectively ensure sanction in British courts against those who committed deeply appalling offences in France would have been nugatory.
      Mr. Ashton: Is not one of the problems the fact that the Data Protection Act 1984 prevents the criminal intelligence unit connected with football from revealing names, addresses and pictures of thugs to clubs, ferry companies and airlines? That is a major restriction. The Act must obviously protect people's privacy, and certain information should not be made public. However, people connected with football who want to prevent violence should have access to that data, which until now has been forbidden to them.
      Mr. Straw: I share my hon. Friend's frustration with the data protection legislation and the way in which it is sometimes interpreted. We must strike a balance between the rights of individuals to have information about them subject to privacy protection, and the public interest involved in revealing that information—particularly for the detection and prevention of crimes. That issue has arisen in the Bill, where we require authorities to establish partnerships that can be achieved effectively only if they share information. Some police forces have been very reluctant to do that, and I am pleased to say that amendments have been made to the Bill to facilitate that transfer of information.
      While the data protection provisions have not blocked the supply of information or the checking by the NCIS of ticket applications within the England members club, they have had other effects that we shall have to consider when the world cup is over.
      There is also a wider issue. For example, older juvenile offenders16 or 17-year-olds—may seek the protection of anonymity under the Data Protection Act, when we all know that, if their names and pictures were made available to the press and the public, it would act as a considerable deterrent to their commission of further offences. I am pleased to say that we have taken significant steps to persuade the youth courts to be much more open in the publication of the names of older juvenile offenders. 1 want the press to be vigorous in checking whether the courts are following our advice.
      720
      4.30 pm
      We have taken other steps to help bona fide supporters from Great Britain. Our advice to supporters was summed up in the phrase, "No ticket, don't travel." Television advertisements supported that message. I know that it was criticised in some quarters, but, in my judgment, it was the only sensible message that the Government could have given to football fans, and it remains our message.
      The proof lies in the fact that, across this country and Scotland, hundreds of thousands of football fans were able to gather, often in clubs or public houses, to enjoy the communal atmosphere of watching a game without the problems that could have arisen had they gone ticketless to France. There is an alcohol ban on Eurostar trains during the tournament. Although we do not have powers to enforce such a ban, I hope that other carriers, such as ferries and airlines, will restrict the availability of alcohol in appropriate circumstances.
      I turn to the new clauses. We share the objectives of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield, especially in the light of recent events, which we all deplore. Last Monday, I spoke to Mr. Chevenement to apologise on behalf of the British Government and people for the events in Marseilles. We are committed to doing whatever we can to ensure that such disgraceful scenes are not repeated in future soccer tournaments. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say—
      1 commend him for saying it—that, even with the best plans that we can think of, there is no way to guarantee that trouble will not take place. We never suggested that that was possible. However, as far as possible, we can guarantee that those causing trouble will be apprehended and dealt with as severely as possible.
      The right hon. Member proposed that the penalty for breaking a restriction order should be increased to six months' imprisonment. We agree, and our new clause 12 brings that into proper order. I hope that that is acceptable to him. He also proposed a power of arrest when someone subject to a restriction order is in breach of it. That, too, we accept. For the benefit especially of Conservative Members, I should say that the difference between the Opposition proposal and ours involves simply getting it into proper order and hooking the offence into the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. That not only provides powers to arrest where a scheduled offence has been committed but ensures that an arrest can be made when it appears on reasonable evidence to a police officer that such an offence is about to be committed.
      If a restriction order was imposed whereby a person had to report at 3 pm to a court in, for example, in Sutton Coldfield—I pick that example at random—but at 2.30 pm that person was at Heathrow airport waiting to board an aeroplane, then, despite the efforts of the right hon. Member during his time at the Department of Transport to improve transport between Heathrow and Sutton Coldfield, the police would have reasonable grounds for believing that an offence was about to be committed, and would be able to make an arrest.
      I understand—I shall deal with the point later—the gravamen of the right hon. Member's proposals for football behaviour orders and for making it almost automatic that a restriction order should be imposed whenever there has been a relevant offence. I should like

      721
      to explain why I do not believe that we can put those proposals into law at this stage. In no sense do I express disapproval for the principle behind the orders.
      The Opposition's football behaviour order would allow the police to apply to the courts when they had reasonable cause to believe that a particular individual would cause disturbances at a football match outside the country. The court would be able to make an order placing prohibitions on the person concerned.
      As the right hon. Gentleman made clear this afternoon and on the "Today" programme this morning, these proposals closely follow the Government's proposals for anti-social behaviour orders. It is important that the matter should be debated in an all-party way. However, in the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman gently teased the then Opposition for having voted against the Football Spectators Act 1989, I shall gently return the compliment, if such it is, for the position that the Conservative Opposition previously took on anti-social behaviour orders.
      I realise that Conservative central office is sometimes off message these days, but it must be said that the Conservative research department, in a brief that it published earlier in the year about the Bill, described the anti-social behaviour order as a policy gimmick that had been dreamed up by us in opposition. It was not a policy gimmick but a serious proposal. Someone should have a word with Conservative central office about that. It may have been taking its cue from the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), who was a Minister in the Department of the Environment. When we made our proposals in opposition, he described anti-social behaviour orders as unnecessary.
      As the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield has raised these matters, it must also be placed on the record that, in The Sunday Telegraph of 12 April 1998, the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) not only referred to the European convention on human rights but was quoted as saying—perhaps he did not say this; it was The Sunday Telegraph—
      that the Government's proposals were "dangerously unworkable". There is always time for sinners to repent, and I am glad that the forensic and persuasive powers of the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), have persuaded the Opposition of the value of anti-social behaviour orders.
      An issue was raised about the extent to which the orders, which are not criminal convictions, could fit properly with the rights of individuals under the European convention on human rights. That was the serious point that the hon. Member for Hertsmere was raising when he kicked anti-social behaviour orders to one side and said that they were "dangerously unworkable". We are clear that the orders are not in breach of the European convention on human rights, but it has to be put on the record, as I think it was in Committee, that they had to be drafted carefully to ensure that they were not.
      Otherwise, there was a danger that the orders, which are civil orders that prohibit people from doing things that, in any event, are unlawful, and retrospectively make that prohibition, could appear to be in the nature of a conviction and a punishment for a past offence. It is
      722
      palpable that a court can base its decision to grant such an order only on evidence that typically will refer to past behaviour as an indication of future misbehaviour.
      We believe that anti-social behaviour orders have struck the right balance, but it has taken a long time to work the issues through. I first proposed such orders—they had a different title then; they were called community safety orders, but that was the principal difference —about three and a half years ago, when we were in opposition. We published two detailed technical consultation documents. Even so, and given the benefit of much helpful profession advice, it was not possible to translate those proposals, on which we had been working for at least a year and a half, into legislation when we came into government. A great deal more work had to be done on the orders before we got them into what we think is a form that will work and is consistent with the European convention on human rights.
      The Bill is close to the end of its passage through the House, and it is extremely important that we achieve Royal Assent before the end of July, so that many of the important proposals can be brought into force as swiftly as possible. I do not need to go through all of them, but one issue that is causing great anxiety to hon. Members on both sides of the House is that of serious sex offenders who were the subject of conviction before the Criminal Justice Act 1991 came into force and who, currently, can leave prison without any restriction being imposed on them.
      Thanks to assiduous work by the police and probation service, working closely together and led by the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, arrangements have been put in place to deal with some of those serious sex offenders; however, those are temporary arrangements. It is extremely important that we get the sex offenders order on the statute book as quickly as possible, so that we can use those orders and ensure that those people are the subject of proper supervision and that the public are properly protected.
      If we were to try to insert in the Bill at this stage a large new order, with the complications that the Opposition themselves accept relate to anti-social behaviour orders, there is a grave danger that, at best, the Bill's passage would be delayed until the spillover part of the Session in late October, and that therefore we would lose at least three months before the Bill could be enacted. Moreover, restriction orders would deal with offences such as those that are being committed in France, whereas the proposed orders would not deal directly with that problem.
      Under the new clause moved by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield, a police officer would need to have a reasonable belief that an order of the sort proposed was appropriate and would go to court to seek the order. The right hon. Gentleman accepted that, in some cases, the police would not wish to apply for an order: because of the nature of the intelligence that they had received, they would not think it appropriate to bring that intelligence before the court. Other than convictions, in almost every case involving football hooligans—[Interruption]
      I can see that those on the Opposition Front Bench are concerned about the light shining in their eyes, which makes thinking difficult. After 18 years of experience on that side of the House, I can tell them that a word to the

      723
      Clerk, followed by a word to a Doorkeeper, will always secure the raising of the blinds. This short interruption will also give me a chance to drink a glass of water. Many a time when I was bathed in sunlight on the Opposition Front Bench, 1 could see that those on the Treasury Bench were enjoying my discomfort; however, we are a compassionate Government.
      The new clause states that the chief officer of police has to have
      "reasonable cause to believe that an order under this section is necessary to prevent"
      a person
      "disturbing good order at any designated football match outside the United Kingdom".
      In short, he must believe not only that an order is appropriate or reasonable, but that it is necessary. I recognise the difficulties of drafting in opposition, but that wording is such that, in almost every case, the evidence that would be required to be put before the court would be intelligence evidence.
      There are two problems with that. One is that in few cases is intelligence evidence good evidence for cause, because it is in the nature of hearsay evidence. The rules relating to evidence in civil courts are wider than those in criminal courts, but even courts where the civil rules of evidence and the civil burden of proof apply have to ensure that the evidence proves the point; otherwise, any decision they made would be overturned on appeal. The second problem is that, even if intelligence evidence were ruled admissible in the court, which in itself would be difficult to achieve, it is questionable whether it would be in the public interest for the courts routinely to be told about the nature of the evidence that was being introduced.
      For example, evidence to be found on the National Criminal Intelligence Service database typically includes evidence from informants. In this country, we rely heavily on informants: it may be an unpleasant aspect of police work to pay criminals or to pay people to act as agents in order to gain good intelligence about other criminals, but it is necessary. It is my judgment, and it has been the judgment of successive Governments, that, although clear rules have to be laid down regarding the proper conduct of informant operations, the public interest would not be served if the nature of informant handling was routinely brought to public notice, as it would have to be under the new clause.
      The result would be that police officers would judge that it would not be in the public interest to seek the orders under the new clause, given the other difficulties relating to the chief police officer's having to prove that an order was necessary to prevent the person concerned from
      "disturbing good order at any designated football match outside the United Kingdom".
      4.45 pm
      Sir Norman Fowler: Would not that argument disappear if we were to limit the clause to past offences? It seems to me that one of the problems with which we have to deal is the fact that 20,000 people have been convicted of football-related offences, yet only 71 restriction orders have been issued. Under the new clause, it would be open to the police to put it to the magistrates court that an individual had been so convicted, which would provide the necessary ground for seeking a further restriction order.
      Mr. Straw: I shall deal later with restriction orders. I am not telling the right hon. Gentleman that we believe that what is contained in new clause 10 is simply to be dismissed —I do not believe that for a moment. It is an important idea, and one which we should sit down and work on.
      However, as the right hon. Gentleman, who was a Minister for many years, often said, in answer to a point from the Opposition, that the Government have a duty to ensure that law passed by the House is good law. The proposition was only made last Thursday, and it will not be possible to put it into proper order within the time available to get the Bill passed, especially given the time it took to get anti-social behaviour orders into shape.
      The right hon. Gentleman knows that, as soon as we got sight of his proposals, I sat down with officials and went through them to find those that we could accept, which we got parliamentary counsel to ensure were put into good order, and those that required more work. If I had thought that we could accept the lot, that would have given me the greatest pleasure of all.
      Mr. Ashton: Will my right hon. Friend ask the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) about the 20,000 convictions to which he referred? Is not the right hon. Gentleman thinking of 20,000 arrests? It seems a large number and probably goes back about 20 years. I would suggest that some of those convictions are for pickpocketing, peddling drugs, or drunkenness inside a football ground—offences which are not really connected with the problem being debated. Many statistics get lumped together and, of the 20,000 convicted, probably only 500 were convicted of serious hooliganism.
      Mr. Straw: I have to tell my hon. Friend that the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield was referring to an answer given to one of his hon. Friends by one of my Ministers last week about the number of football-related offences recorded in the past five years. Football-related offences cover the sorts of offence to which my hon. Friend refers, as well as offences of violence and specific hooliganism of the sort exhibited in the south of France.
      It may be appropriate to deal directly with restriction orders. We accept that there are defects in the Football Spectators Act 1989. The right hon. Gentleman teased me about the fact that we voted against Second Reading of that Bill, so it might be sensible for me to put on the record our reasons for doing so.
      We did so to save the Conservative Government from the grave error of going down the road of football identity cards. At that stage, I believe that the right hon. Gentleman was not spending sufficient time with his family and was still a member of the Cabinet. As he is a man of great wisdom, I have no doubt that he told Mrs. Thatcher that an identity card scheme was likely to make matters worse, not better. I know that many other people said the same to her. Besides me, she is the only other honorary vice-president of Blackburn Rovers; but her knowledge of soccer and attendance on the terraces are not exactly as extensive as mine. In short, she did not understand how the system would operate. That is why we voted against Second Reading of the Football Spectators Bill.
      In the end, the previous Government saw the wisdom of what we were saying, and did not bring into force the relevant part of the Bill. My right hon. Friend the

      725
      Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), speaking for the Opposition—it was a Department of the Environment Bill—said:
      "We can at least agree the principle of part II of the Bill and the intention to restrict people convicted of a football-related offence from travelling to matches abroad."—[Official Report, 27 June 1989; Vol.155, c. 860.]
      More recently, in 1995, we said that the restriction orders should be used more often by the courts.
      Sir Norman Fowler: Returning to the point raised by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), the fact is that 20,000 football-related offences have been committed in the past five years. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that all their perpetrators could have been subject to restriction orders?
      Mr. Straw: I cannot confirm that. The definition of a relevant offence in the Football Spectators Act is different from, and narrower than, the definition that the police use for recording purposes. If I am wrong, I shall try to provide more information later in the debate.
      As we know, restriction orders prevent those subject to them from attending matches abroad involving teams from England and Wales. The offenders concerned have to report to police stations in this country when such matches take place. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield said that restriction orders had almost fallen into disuse when we took office. That is true: last year, there were only nine extant orders. I decided to issue a circular, which went out on 27 December last year, to the courts, the CPS, the Magistrates Association and the police, reminding them all of this power. As a result, the number of orders in force has risen from nine to 71.
      Detective Inspector Chapman of the NCIS wanted us to take other measures as well, some of them impossible, but the publicity surrounding the circular, and its implementation, have meant that the courts are now seized of the need to impose the orders—they are responding to the advice extremely well.
      I want to pick up the right hon. Gentleman's point about whether the courts should automatically impose orders. Operational instructions have been provided to prosecutors; the Lord Chancellor's Department has reminded courts of their powers under the 1989 Act. Operational guidance to the CPS asks prosecutors to make applications for bail conditions for the prevention of further offences, and, when appropriate, for the surrender of passports. It also asks prosecutors to make applications for restriction orders when appropriate. Instructions advise prosecutors, when the circumstances surrounding a football-related offence are not made clear on the case file—sometimes they are not—to approach the police for further details.
      I do not want to speak for much longer, especially as I have just been handed a note to that effect by my Minister of State, but I should like to deal with the point about automaticity. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield will be aware of the apprehension felt in the courts whenever an automatic penalty is imposed. The facility was used sparingly by the previous Government, and when, with our support, such propositions were presented, they resulted from the most detailed scrutiny. The relevant part of the new clause is unacceptable to us, as it goes too wide.
      726
      I can only tell the right hon. Gentleman that I stand ready to institute further discussions with the Lord Chancellor and the CPS to ensure that the courts are advised, whenever a football-related offence is before them, to consider imposing a restriction order. We shall also advise them to give reasons when they do not do so. Given the public's concerns—magistrates are also members of the public—about what has happened in France, I believe that the courts will readily accede to such advice.
      In the light of what I have said about football behaviour orders and the extension of automaticity, I hope that the Opposition will not press the new clause to a vote.
      Mr. Lansley: Does the Home Secretary agree that it was because there was no immediate prospect of England travelling abroad to football matches that restriction orders were not sought for a long period—they were not required in relation to any particular events? Has he considered the scope for applying restriction orders retrospectively to given offences?
      Mr. Straw: There is a general prohibition on creating retrospective criminal offences. That is a principle of our law and of the European convention. I am advised, however, that the changes that I hope the House will agree later today—in respect of stronger punishments for breaches of restriction orders—will apply to all new orders, including those made in respect of offences already committed in France. Thus, those who have committed such offences in France will be caught, because the orders will not be made until the Bill—with luck—becomes an Act. To that extent, retrospective effect will be given to convictions already obtained—and to those that I hope will continue to be obtained in France for hooligan offences committed during the world cup.
      Sir Norman Fowler: Is the Home Secretary saying that he does not oppose the principle of our football behaviour order, and that he would be prepared to listen to further arguments, perhaps put at a meeting, about how such an order could be given practical effect?
      Mr. Straw: The answer is yes. For the avoidance of dubiety, however, I should add that I do not believe that it will be possible to conclude those discussions before the end of the Report stage. It is important not to make the best the enemy of the good; we must get the Bill into law as quickly as possible, not least to ensure that anyone breaking a restriction order suffers the maximum penalty of six months, not one month; and to give the police the power of arrest. I nevertheless undertake to instigate discussions on the issue as quickly as possible.
      I have spoken at some length because these are important issues. I wanted to explain to the Opposition why we have accepted two parts of their new clauses, and why we have been unable to accept the wording of two other parts. It is clear from the debate, however, that the whole House is united in its opposition to what happened in Marseilles, and in its determination to act ever more severely on football hooliganism, in this country and abroad.
      Mr. Edward Leigh: Anti-social behaviour orders, on which the new clauses are based, were debated at length in Committee. Last weekend, the

      727
      Prime Minister seemed to suggest that the Opposition were less committed than the Government to stamping out hooligan behaviour. He was undoubtedly basing those remarks on information that had been given to him by the Minister of State, Home Office, who, in turn, was misquoting what my hon. Friends and I said in Committee. It must be placed firmly on the record, so that the Home Secretary appreciates the matter, that the Opposition were not opposed to the anti-social behaviour orders in Committee, and we are not being cynical because we have tabled new clauses containing orders that are based on the anti-social behaviour orders for debate on the Floor of the House.
      5 pm
      I shall remind the Home Secretary of some of the questions that we asked in Committee. We wanted to ensure that there was rigour about the anti-social behaviour orders, that they were not sweepingly defined, and that it was clear who the victim was. We were not opposed to the anti-social behaviour orders, but we argued in detail that existing legislation, especially the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, which mentions
      "threatening, insulting or & abusive behaviour",
      already covered the sort of behaviour about which the Government have complained. We were trying to probe precisely what new form of behaviour would be covered by the orders, as is our duty.
      The Minister of State, Home Office: I remind the hon. Gentleman that we spent a long time discussing the fact that prevention rather than punishment was the aim of the anti-social behaviour orders. He does not seem to have grasped that point yet.
      Mr. Leigh: We did spend a long time discussing that point. As the Minister made clear, if an anti-social behaviour order is imposed, punishment in terms of criminal conviction does not follow, but, as he well knows, other punishment follows, and a number of restrictions can be placed on the defendant by the courts if the defendant does not comply with the order. We made those points in Committee, and we were perfectly entitled to do so.
      We also made it clear that, at heart, the Bill was a Conservative Bill, and that many of the matters that we were debating were originally mooted by the Conservative Government. We were trying to tease out from the Minister precisely what sort of behaviour would be covered. On many occasions, he was either unwilling or incapable of telling us in detail what sort of behaviour the orders were designed to catch. Indeed, he used a famous phrase, saying that we would recognise such behaviour as the elephant on the doorstep. I said to him:
      "The elephant on your doorstep is not the language of Lord Denning."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 30 April 1998; c. 67.]
      The Minister, however, seemed happy to say to the Committee, "Don't worry; we can't define what sort of behaviour will be covered, but the magistrates will deal with the matter adequately when it comes back to them." We said, "No. What sort of behaviour will be covered by an anti-social behaviour order—playing a CD too loud, irritating the neighbours or causing distress, although there might not be a particular victim?"
      728
      The Opposition have tabled in the new clause an anti-social behaviour order that provides, for the first time, a clear definition of such behaviour. It also includes a definition of a victim that I believe would not fall foul of the European convention on human rights. We have clearly defined a problem. The whole House is aware that there are major difficulties with football hooliganism—that is international news—and the Conservative Opposition have provided a closely defined form of anti-social behaviour. Apparently the Government will reject our new clause, but I can think of no good reason why they should do so.
      The Home Secretary said that the Bill would somehow be delayed if he did further work on the new clause. I do not believe that that is true. It would be perfectly possible for the Government to come back in a week or two with their own form of anti-social behaviour order which dealt precisely with football hooliganism. Why are the Government opposing the new clause? Perhaps they are doing so out of a sense of pique, because the Conservative Opposition have correctly identified football hooliganism as the issue of the hour and provided a definition of a form of anti-social behaviour that the public want to be addressed. We have also identified the fact that the Bill does not address such behaviour.
      Why are the Government opposing the new clause? They could have said, as the Home Secretary was careful not to, that it was incorrectly drafted. He could have passed it to the parliamentary draftsmen, and I would have understood it if he had said, "The essence of the new clause is correct, but it is defectively drafted. Let us redraft it, and we shall see whether we can put it in the Bill." He has not said that, but has come back with loose and ill-defined opposition to our new clause.
      For the life of me, I cannot understand why the Government will not accept the new clause: after all, it could be used on the basis of clear evidence. In the Committee debate on anti-social behaviour on council estates, we said that it is often difficult to prove a particular form of behaviour. There may be malicious prosecutions and disputes, and, as in cowboy movies, no clear sense of good and bad. There are many grey areas such as domestic disputes between and within families, but we have provided a clear and close definition of such behaviour and an order could be based on a conviction.
      As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) has said, there have in recent years been 20,000 convictions as a result of behaviour on or about the football terraces. As anti-social behaviour orders are being introduced, what could be easier than introducing a clearly defined form of anti-social behaviour specifically in respect of hooliganism at football matches? What clearer message could be sent out to the general public? I believe that the new clause is sound, and I urge hon. Members to support it.
      Mr. Eric Martlew: I am concerned that football hooliganism is the issue of the moment. As the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) said, it has been picked out by the Conservatives. Often, Parliament does not do justice to legislation because it has been rushed through. Hon. Members who were in the House when we rushed through the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989 will know that that was particularly bad legislation.
      I am also worried when there is consensus between Front Benchers. There is consensus today, but I remind hon. Members that there was consensus when the Child

      729
      Support Agency legislation—the Child Support Act 1995—was passed; and we know what we got with that. I welcome what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said, and there is a need to tighten the law.
      Regrettably, one of my constituents has a record of violence at or in the vicinity of football matches going back 10 years. I shall not mention his name, because he would only glory in being mentioned in Parliament. That gentleman was involved in Dublin in 1995, when the match between Ireland and England had to be abandoned—he was arrested, given a suspended sentence and deported. In October 1997, he attacked an Italian pensioner on a train while travelling to Rome for the world cup qualifying match.
      My constituent is a known hooligan. He went on record as saying that he was going to France to cause trouble, so I decided to write to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, making three points. First, I asked whether this hooligan could be prevented from going to France, because he had said that he was intent on violence. My right hon. Friend replied that, regrettably, that could not be done because my constituent did not have a restriction order on him, and that he would be allowed to travel to France.
      I appreciate my right hon. Friend's reply, which I received today, but I did not need it, because Cumbria police had said that they could not stop my constituent, and in Saturday's edition of The Mirror, it was reported that my constituent was in France, had bought a ticket on the black market, and was staying at a good hotel. Obviously, he was able to get through the net—there was nothing we could do to stop him. I understand—although this has not been confirmed—that he has now returned to England. The man boasts about the trouble he causes. He has caused trouble in both Ireland and Italy, but it seems that we cannot do anything about it.
      Secondly, the man has now said that he intends to produce a book to coincide with the world cup. He will make up to £800,000 out of recording his violent behaviour. I asked my right hon. Friend whether there was any way in which to stop publication of the book, or to take away the man's profit and give it to the victims of his crime. The answer was that such action would be very unlikely. Again, that cannot be right. It should not be possible for criminals, which is what they are, who have been through the courts—and the man concerned has been in prison on a number of occasions—to capitalise on their criminal record. The publishers are interested only in profits, and the companies selling the books say that they do not want to behave like censors. It cannot be right for these criminals to profit.
      Thirdly, there was a suggestion that the man would sell his story to a newspaper and that it would be serialised. I asked my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary whether that could be stopped. The answer was that, regrettably, it could not be stopped because it is perfectly legal. It was suggested that the Press Complaints Commission might be able to do something, but the Government could not stop it.
      Hon. Members will understand why people in my constituency who know the man want the law to be changed. The law needs to be changed. It should not be possible for one or two thugs to make a fool of the law—
      730
      and, to be honest, a fool of Parliament. The vast majority of football supporters from Carlisle and the rest of the country have gone to the world cup to have a good time. They are of good character and law-abiding. One or two supporters are spoiling things, and we must take action to stop them.
      We cannot assume that we have taken the necessary action. I suspect that many hon. Members, on both sides of the House, believed that we had passed the necessary legislation. Perhaps even my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary thought so. Previous Home Secretaries have said, "We are doing this, that and the other," but when it has been tested, the law has been found wanting.
      I hope that my right hon. Friend will push ahead with his proposals today, but return to the House at a later date with further proposals to prevent criminals from writing books about their exploits. In a law-abiding society that wants to go forward, it is not acceptable that such people should be able to drag us down.
      Mr. Bob Russell: There has been broad support for the Government's proposals, and I wish to continue that consensus. We are united in deploring the incidents that have occurred and we pray that there will not be any more. The problem is that many of those involved thrive on the oxygen of publicity, as the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) said. It could be argued that this debate provides more publicity. Although I accept that the incidents occurred, I question the way in which they were portrayed by the media—it was exactly what the thugs wanted. I hope that both the media and the thugs have now had enough.
      The Liberal Democrat party supports the spirit and the sentiments that have been expressed from both Front Benches. However, I hope that the Home Secretary can clarify certain issues that may cause concern. Will he confirm that incidents that happen overseas will not be subject to further trial in this country? I am referring to the imposition of a restriction in this country, rather than the offence being dealt with a second time.
      Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that restriction orders will be served only on those who have been found guilty of an offence, and not in the circumstances referred to by the hon. Member for Carlisle where there had not been a conviction? I acknowledge the points that the hon. Gentleman made, but if there has not been a conviction, I question whether a restriction order would be valid. I hope that the Home Secretary will clarify the matter.
      5.15 pm
      I was disturbed to hear that there are some 4,000 convictions a year for football-related offences. Although the incidents at the world cup over the last two weeks have focused attention on the English disease—I was about to say the British disease, but in fairness, it is an English football disease—I would welcome further clarification of how we are to deal with the continuing problem of football hooliganism within the English game—the home season.
      Does the Home Secretary believe that the clubs are doing all that is necessary? I include in that question those who wear their clubs' colours on the pitch, and their activities when they are not on the pitch. We are looking for leadership from our professional footballers. Hon. Members are aware that one or two of them have

      731
      not set the best examples. It is possible that one or two of the hooligans thought that they were settling a score. If there are 4,000 convictions a year, should there not be an increase in the use of restriction orders? I do not refer only to the big clubs; there are also problems with the smaller clubs. I am also worried about how the proposals will be policed. It will be another burden on our hard-pressed police forces.
      Although I acknowledge that the House and the public want action to be taken, I want to dissociate myself from the Prime Minister's suggestion that those who are convicted of an offence overseas should be sacked from their jobs in this country. The consequence of doing that will be the public purse having to support those people. I am not defending football hooligans, but I think that the Prime Minister has overstepped the mark.
      Mr. Martlew: The man in the case that I cited was sacked from his job after the Italian attack. It is a punishment. Surely employers have the right to dismiss people who discredit their companies.
      Mr. Russell: That is a matter for the employers and the tribunals. A virtual instruction from the Prime Minister is not helpful. If the hooligan is in an occupation where good order is paramount, sacking might be justified, but it is not necessarily relevant—
      Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: What occupation would be appropriate for such action?
      Mr. Russell: I will not be drawn into that question. It is not the role of Government to instruct employers on how they should dispense with the services of those whom they employ. I stand by that statement. I had not thought that the state was interfering with employers to quite that extent.
      I join the two Front-Bench spokesmen in congratulating the police in this country and in France, and the British officials overseas on what they have done to try to improve the situation. I trust that the minority—and it is the minority—will not prevail, and that thousands of law-abiding English and Scottish supporters will be able to enjoy the remainder of the world cup without the thugs dragging English soccer further into the mire.
      Mr. David Crausby: I unreservedly condemn the hooliganism in Marseilles. The so-called English patriots who marauded through France brought nothing but shame on the nation and on the football team. It is ridiculous to refer to them as brave, aggressive young men: they are nothing of the kind. Even to speak of them in the same breath as the genuinely brave men who died in past wars is disgraceful. The individuals who marauded through France are the cowards of the crowd and they should not be considered brave in any circumstances. All hon. Members should surely agree with that. Their behaviour is ruining the world cup and our prospects in that tournament. They are not representative of the decent fans who want to enjoy a celebration of the game.
      It is pretty clear that the present system is unable to deal with the problem. The solution is not new law, but a tighter use of restriction orders by the courts. I accept that 71 cases is too few, but there has been an improvement this year. At the beginning of the year there were only
      732
      nine, so at least some progress has been made. I am convinced that the Crown Prosecution Service, the courts and the police can make greater use of restriction orders.
      The real solution to hooliganism does not lie with the law: it lies with a change in the culture of the game. It comes down to what the game is about, including the people who participate in it. A great deal of work has already been done. Anyone who takes a tour of football grounds will realise that enormous steps have been taken towards finding a solution to the problem of hooliganism. Remarkable improvements have been made to facilities.
      Football must heal itself. A change in culture must be backed by football clubs and, most important, by players, who make a lot of money out of the game. For the future of the game and for the future of our young people, they have a responsibility to show, both on and off the field, that good behaviour is the only way forward for this great game of ours.
      Mr. Nick Hawkins: I share the views of the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Crausby). It is interesting that he and the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) were united in their view that the current law is not adequate to deal with this problem. The hon. Member for Carlisle supported the point, argued by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), that we need to go further than the Government have proposed. The Government should accept the entirety of new clause 10. It is clear that there is unanimity in the House about the importance of this issue, and that the Opposition's new clauses go further than the Government have been prepared to go.
      Hon. Members are united in their concern for the French police officer who was attacked during further mob violence. He is married and has two children. I am sure that we all send our best wishes to his family. My heart sank as the news of the attack was broadcast, but then it became clear that German, not English, fans were involved. I applaud the German football authorities for offering to withdraw their team from further participation in the tournament. That offer has been declined, but it shows that football authorities rightly recognise that the appalling spectacle of violence has affected the tournament, as the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East said. It has been a national disgrace for all the countries whose supporters have been involved in violence.
      All hon. Members condemn hooliganism, but we also have a duty to say how we can best deal with the problem. I was surprised that the French authorities took decisions only after the first violence occurred in Marseilles. Bars are to close at 11 pm, and the giant screens which the fans wanted, are to be removed as a punishment and will be restore only if there is no further violence and hooliganism. Surely it would have been common sense to close all the bars somewhat earlier than 11 pm. It is clear from our sadly extensive experience of football violence over many years that much of it is drink-related.
      Mr. Vernon Coaker: Does not shutting bars treat the symptoms rather than the cause? We should be driving out the hooligans. Fans from other nations drink and use bars until goodness knows what time in the morning, but they do not get involved in fighting, and

      733
      there is no stain on their nation. Hooliganism must be dealt with without spoiling the enjoyment of the rest of us, who behave responsibly.
      Mr. Hawkins: I agree that it is sad that the enjoyment of law-abiding people is spoilt because bars have to close, but we are not talking about them. I think that the hon. Gentleman is realistic enough to accept that drink has always played a part in such offences. Although I entirely agree that we must find a way to deal with hooliganism—we are debating ways of extending the law to deal with the hooligan problem—it is extraordinary that, given the extent of the shared police intelligence during the build-up to the world cup, more thought was not given to the significance of drink in the behaviour of hooligans.
      Mr. Tony McWalter: I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that drink was not an element of the German offence, of which he gave a clear description. Perhaps his argument that drink always plays a role in hooligan offences should be corrected.
      Mr. Hawkins: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but the film footage of the scenes of violence in Marseilles involving England supporters clearly showed that drink had played a part in those incidents. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is nodding.
      Mr. Soames: I endorse entirely what my hon. Friend has said. I have read with increasing disbelief the histories of some of the people involved in this thuggery. What the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Mc Walter) said applies to the ringleaders. Drink is not a part of their methods: they are calm, controlled and determined. They wickedly and ruthlessly take advantage of those who are already drunk. Of course drink is a problem, but the leaders are wicked, evil people who are not drunk, and who behave in this way for a purpose.
      5.30 pm
      Mr. Hawkins: I agree with my hon. Friend, but there can be trouble not only at football matches, but at other sporting events when no ringleaders are involved. Not long ago, I was at a race meeting with my two young sons when a drink-related fight broke out. No ringleaders, sober and bent on violence, were involved; several young men who had had far too much to drink simply became violent. Much of what we are talking about is undoubtedly drink-related.
      All hon. Members who have spoken so far agree about the need to use restriction orders more. We would all encourage the courts to make greater use of the powers they already have, but much of the planning for the world cup, worthwhile though it was, did not go far enough. Before it started, disquiet was expressed about the limited number of tickets available to England fans, but the Government's instruction to fans not to travel without a ticket was, sadly, always doomed to failure.
      I do not criticise the Home Secretary for what he said. I am sure that any responsible Minister would have made the same kind of statement, but we all recognised at the time that many supporters were bound to travel to France without tickets, hoping to get them on the black market.
      734
      We recognised that many supporters would end up rootless and shiftless in the streets around the towns where the English team was due to play, and that there would be trouble when drink was involved.
      I hope that the Home Secretary will reflect on what my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield said about the need to consider the issue further. The Home Secretary is being very realistic in saying that he is prepared to examine the problem beyond the confines of this debate, but I ask him to take seriously what my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) said. We did not deal with this subject in Committee, but we did consider general anti-social behaviour. As my hon. Friend said, in Committee we were concerned to make the Bill work and we believe that our new clauses would be effective.
      Ms Sally Keeble: In Committee, we discussed at some length the proposition that separate orders should be introduced only to cover distinct and recognisable behaviour, and that they should not be applied too generously. Will the hon. Gentleman explain exactly the distinct type of behaviour that the football behaviour order would cover, and how that behaviour would be distinct enough to justify a separate order?
      Mr. Hawkins: I hear what the hon. Lady says but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough said, we want the Bill to be effective in practice.
      The Home Secretary talked about the seminar at Ewood Park which, as I think he is aware, was also attended by a superintendent from my area and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins). He was previously a Metropolitan police officer in charge of policing at Stamford Bridge, but more recently he has been the senior officer in charge at Woking during Woking's successful cup run, so he has experience of being in charge of policing at a major premier league club, and of the problems associated with premier league matches as well as smaller clubs. Problems can arise when smaller clubs are visited by larger clubs and the ground does not always have the capacity to cope with all the supporters. It was a successful seminar and I have had good reports of it. I am sure that the Government will continue to encourage the police to cross-fertilise experience and opinion—internationally as well.
      I am delighted that the Football Association has employed a former senior police officer, whom we all heard speak at length in the media in the aftermath of the violence. It is good that such expertise is available, but we know that despite all the good intentions and the hard work the trouble has continued. I believe that new clause 10 would be a better way to deal with it.
      Mr. Lansley: Will my hon. Friend reflect on the fact that considerable progress in controlling violence has been made at domestic football matches in recent years? Does he agree that the world cup is a relatively accessible tournament to which people spend considerable time travelling, and that it is those circumstances that give rise to the particular need for new clause 10?
      Mr. Hawkins: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. It has become clear that many of the people involved in the violence at international tournaments—

      735
      this perhaps relates to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames)—have well-paid jobs. They can afford to travel internationally. There is undoubtedly a need for the courts to consider seriously how to exert their powers in order, as the hon. Member for Carlisle said, to hit where it hurts most. It is important to examine how the courts can use restriction orders and how the powers can be extended.
      I hope that the Government will reflect further on this matter. I also hope that, in due course, something very much like new clause 10 will appear in a subsequent Bill—if the Home Secretary cannot take the proposal on board now. It is certainly important to look very hard at what is suggested in new clause 10.
      Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: As a dedicated and long-term supporter of Hastings Town football club, I have no personal experience of crowd troubles, as the team's best crowd of the season was 375. However, with promotion to the Ryman league, we are hoping for better things.
      Sitting by our televisions and experiencing the humiliation the nation suffered because of the behaviour of our so-called supporters means that we are all involved, but it would be a great pity if the agreement that exists across the House that something needs to be done were fractured by petty, party political points—the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), for example, impugned the Government's good intentions because they do not wish to accept new clause 10.
      The most important thing is to introduce provisions that work. On the face of, there are problems with new clause 10. It has been suggested that it fits in with clause 1 —and the heading "Crime and disorder: general"—which deals with anti-social behaviour orders. With respect, it does not.
      There is a need for provisions to be precise. Clause 1 is very precise in that it states that an application for an anti-social behaviour order may be made if a person
      "has acted … in an anti-social manner, that is to say, in a manner that caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to one or more persons not of the same household as himself".
      There may be judicial interpretation of precisely what that means, but it is sufficiently clear to help the judiciary in their consideration.
      New clause 10 is much less precise. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already alluded to the test of necessity. It is a very high test and it could well be too high in this instance. The new clause states that a football behaviour order may be applied for if
      "the person has acted in such a way as to give reasonable cause to believe"
      that such an order is necessary, but there is no assistance in interpreting what "such a way" is. Phrases such as "in such a way" are so vague and unintelligible that it is difficult, certainly for the layman and, in turn, for the judiciary, to understand what they mean.
      Like my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, I would support a new clause that achieved the Opposition's objective, but new clause 10 is not the one.
      Mr. Humfrey Matins: I should like first to apologise to the Home Secretary and to other hon. Members for missing the first few minutes of the debate.
      736
      I was unavoidably detained. However, it has been a very good debate. It is also quite clear that hon. Members on both sides of the House feel very strongly about the issue—about which there is a great deal of unanimity. It is absolutely not a party political issue.
      In the past couple of weeks, one of the saddest things for us all has been to switch on the television and to see pictures not of great football matches but of the violence surrounding those matches. Our reputation abroad has been partly destroyed. Many good, ordinary people watching those disgraceful scenes on the television will ask themselves, "How on earth did some of those hooligans and thugs get there? How were they allowed to go there in the first place? What kind of system do we have when they can travel willy-nilly? Why weren't their passports taken away? Can't something be done about it in future?" The only answer is that we must never let it happen again.
      The truth of the matter is that the vast majority of football fans in this country are good, law-abiding people. My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) mentioned Woking football club, which is in my own constituency. It has a wonderful side, which has a great family following and always maintains an outstanding atmosphere. There are many such teams across the country.
      So far as I can determine, there are two types of hooligan. One type is the more sinister, tending to go to matches to create violence without taking any drink. They are very nasty, wicked people. There are plenty of those around, who will try, whenever they can, to get to a match to cause violence for its own sake. Some of them are politically driven by one extreme or another of the spectrum. They are very serious and very nasty people.
      The second type of hooligan is perhaps less serious and nasty, although it is not at all pleasant. It is composed of those who are normally law-abiding but behave out of character when full of drink.
      Both types of hooligan require attention, and new clause 10 is an important step in that direction.
      Mr. Lansley: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in Marseilles, there was some evidence—not least from the deportation orders made by the French authorities—that the number of those in the first category of hooligans that he mentioned, who are known as category C hooligans, was relatively small? The difficulty is that there was a relatively large number of those whom he might have included in his second category. Part of the difficulty, which new clause 10 deals with, is how to prevent relatively large numbers of such persons arriving in such circumstances at an England game.
      Mr. Matins: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The number of those who are in the first category of hooligans is relatively small, and the number of those in the second category is the highest.
      I should like to talk to the Home Secretary about the difficulties that he mentioned about new clause 10, and offer my suggestions on how those difficulties might be overcome. I believe that, early in his speech, the Home Secretary—he will forgive me for having entered the Chamber after he started his speech—said that one of the problems with provisions such as new clause 10 is the hearsay nature of the evidence that might be brought

      737
      before a court and the fact that often informants are used and are very relevant in such proceedings. He was essentially saying that there would be evidential problems, which I can appreciate.
      In the spirit of all-party co-operation, however, would the Home Secretary consider whether an application for a football behaviour order should be brought not only in a magistrates court but in a Crown court, before a judge? I make that suggestion specifically because the Home Secretary has mentioned evidential problems in making such orders. There are evidential problems when informants are responsible for a tip-off, advice or hearsay and second-hand evidence because, under natural justice, the defendant is entitled to see the evidence against him and to know its origin—which takes us into the sphere of public interest immunity certificates.
      Public interest immunity is a complicated area of the law. However, in granting certificates, the judge or tribunal deciding a case has to take a decision, based on case law, on whether there should be disclosure of the source of information.
      I hope that the Home Secretary will take on board the fact that one of the benefits of seeking a football behaviour order in the Crown court would be that the difficulties that he mentioned—about information based on informants—would be overcome partly by a Crown court judge's ability to listen very carefully to difficult, complex arguments on public interest immunity, and, when necessary, to reject those arguments out of hand.
      5.45 pm
      Crown courts may also—I say this with no disrespect to magistrates courts—bring more expertise and expedition to the decision-making process. That may be one reason for requiring the orders to be made in a Crown court. Nevertheless, there may still be a difficulty because of the speed required in making an order. Information that someone might be behaving in a manner that may make it necessary to grant an order to prevent him disturbing good order may come to light only fair late on, sometimes within a day or only a few hours of the proposed departure for the match. I recognise that difficulty, and the possible need for some sort of expedited proceedings.
      Another argument for bringing the proceedings in the Crown court rather than the magistrates court is that, under new clause 10, breach of a football behaviour order would entail a maximum 6 months' imprisonment. Hon. Members will know that, in practice, under provisions in the Crime and Disorder Bill, six weeks is the maximum sentence that can be served in custody in a six-month sentence. We have consistently to remind the Government about that point.
      I have tried in my speech specifically to point up the matter of public interest immunity. There is some danger in rushing through legislation that has not been thought out properly. The House has seen sufficient examples of such legislation. There is perhaps a temptation to have a knee-jerk reaction to current events in France and elsewhere, and to try to pass today a law that will sort out the problem. I do not think that it is possible to solve the problem today.
      738
      Today, the House can debate the issues. 1 hope that we will advance that debate in a spirit of co-operation, so that we might move towards a solution—which will be in place, if not next week, as soon as reasonably possible—and ensure that such events do not happen again.
      I do not think that we will ever stamp out football hooliganism, here or abroad. Human nature and a free society are such that such behaviour will happen. Life is like that, and we will not change it. However, we can do quite a lot to cut down on the incidence of such behaviour. As the years go by, we can hammer away at the edges to improve matters. It is important for us to attempt to do that.
      I dare say that this debate, which has focused on the behaviour of some English people abroad, may apply also to the behaviour of some young people from other countries. The problem is not unique to this country, and is currently probably being faced by other parliaments. I am quite sure that the Home Secretary is discussing with his counterparts across Europe and around the world whether any magic solutions—or solutions better than those that we are considering—have been discovered elsewhere. I rather doubt that any such solutions have been found, but I am sure that the Home Secretary has tried to find them. I am sure that the House would like to hear his proposed solutions.
      Mr. Coaker: I apologise to the House for missing much of the speeches by Front Benchers in opening the debate. I should like to ask my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary whether it will be possible after the Bill is passed to impose an anti-social behaviour order on some of our train companies, so that hon. Members might arrive for debates on time.
      I very much agree with the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) that it is important that the House should be debating the issues surrounding football-related violence. This group of new clauses and amendment No. 166 give us the opportunity for such a debate. Given the seriousness of what has happened in the past few days, the British people would not understand if we did not have a full and frank discussion in the Chamber. Indeed, they would have felt let down had there not been an exchange of views on how we can prevent or minimise such events in future. I very much agree with the hon. Member for Woking about the importance of the debate and the opportunities afforded by the new clause.
      It is important for hon. Members to reflect on how we felt just over a week ago when we saw on television the behaviour of so-called English football supporters in Marseilles. What should have been a great feeling of elation, joy and expectation before the game, and after the game a sense of tremendous joy that we had won, became for many of us despair, disillusion, frustration and, quite frankly, embarrassment. That was a common theme.
      I recall people telling me that the football match had become almost irrelevant, and the result had been soured by what had happened. When we saw the scenes on the beaches of Marseilles before the game, we could not help thinking that the people involved were supposed to be supporting the English football team and representing our country, but were simply dragging it into the gutter. Although we must recognise that they were a minority of the supporters, none the less they disgraced us all.
      In discussing the new clauses, we should dispel some of the myths surrounding violence at football matches and the ways in which those involved dress up their behaviour

      739
      in an attempt to excuse it. We have become accustomed to so-called supporters saying on television, on the radio or in newspapers that they were standing up for England. I do not want them standing up for me. The vast majority of people I have met do not believe that those people are standing up for England, and it is important that that message gets through to them. I am sure that hon. Members agree that it is no good such people wrapping themselves in the banner of English nationalism as an excuse for thuggery and hooliganism, and we will have no part of it.
      We must also recognise that such action is not taken by a few hooligans from depressed council estates who go abroad to vent on the streets of a foreign land their frustration at their lack of opportunity in their own society. People who commit such offences come from all sections of society. For too long we have excused hooliganism, thuggery and anti-social behaviour by saying that the people involved are kicking against bad times and a lack of opportunity. It is a lame excuse, which does not wash. It is an insult to us all, not least the law-abiding fans in Marseilles.
      We must also accept that this is an English problem. The Scottish supporters drink considerable amounts of alcohol and dress in particular ways, and have been having a good time dancing in the streets, but, although they have been a little the worse for wear, by and large they have not resorted to the behaviour of the so-called England supporters.
      I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary spoke about stiffer penalties for such offences, which are also proposed in new clause 11. The tightening of the law is the very least that the British public expect. The mythical ordinary man and woman in the street would say that, although it should not have happened, we should make sure that people who have degraded our country should not be allowed to get away with it, and are punished for what they have done. That is what the public demand of us.
      I say to the Minister of State that nothing undermines public confidence in the legal system or in Parliament more than our discussing issues and passing laws that are then not enforced. We are discussing stiffer penalties. If we are drawing a line in the sand and saying that people who cross that line will be in trouble, the new laws must be enforced.
      If the courts do not enforce the law and impose stricter penalties, people will say that Parliament was interested in the problem when it was on the news and caused embarrassment, and that we pretended to take action but in reality did nothing. If we increase the penalties and say that we are determined to take action against football hooliganism and anti-social behaviour, of which football hooliganism is an extreme example, it is important that the courts enforce the legislation and use their powers to impose penalties.
      Mr. Lansley: On that point, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it might be preferable to proceed in the way proposed in new clause 11, which requires the court to make a restriction order on a person who commits a football-related offence, unless there are exceptional circumstances, rather than proceeding in the way
      740
      suggested by the Home Secretary, which involves guidance to courts and encouragement, without the House setting out its specific intentions?
      Mr. Coaker: I understand that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was saying that there has to be a balance between the independence and rights of the judiciary and the right of Parliament to set the guidance within which the courts operate. When Parliament tries to give guidance on how the courts should respond in particular cases, they often ignore it or regard it as less important than we do. My right hon. Friend was saying that the framework of the Crime and Disorder Bill offers a way forward to ensure that the will of the people expressed through Parliament is enforced in the courts, and that we do not get to the point at which laws exist but are not enforced.
      Finally, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on the way in which he supported the actions of the French police. We should apologise to the French people, and tell them that we wish the world cup to continue to be a celebration of football, as it has been in the vast majority of matches in the majority of cities, and represent all the best about that terrific game. My right hon. Friend was right to support the French police, and the English police in working with them. I hope that they get the message that we want them to be tough when it is necessary.
      We recognise that we are talking about a small minority of hooligans rather than the vast majority of law-abiding fans. However, that small minority is a disgrace to our country and to us all. Parliament needs to address the problem in the longer term, and we hope that the French police will deal with it harshly and firmly during the world cup.
      6 pm
      Mr. Soames: I congratulate the Home Secretary on the spirited way in which he has taken up this excellent Tory Bill. This is my first opportunity to speak on it. I ask the Minister to convey my gratitude to the Home Secretary for the very thoughtful way in which he received a delegation that I led about public order matters and anti-social behaviour. The people I took to see him were very grateful for the measured, sensible and forthright way in which he dealt with their concerns. I am pleased that the Bill deals with such important matters. I congratulate him on having the courage to take it forward.
      I also warmly endorse the points made by the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Crausby). I agree with his comments on the behaviour of professional footballers on the field. A lot needs to be done in the management of professional sport. I saw a young British player being sent off in a rugger match the other night for stamping on the head of another player. Someone who commits that offence on the field of competitive sport should be banned from playing from his country again.
      One of the best regulated sports that I have seen in Britain is Army boxing, which I followed closely when I was Minister for the Armed Forces. One element that dignified the sport was the fact that one breach of any rule would exclude the young man concerned from fighting for the Army or the regiment again. That produced a discipline and sense of sportsmanship in the ring that greatly added to the sport.

      741
      I sympathise with the frustration expressed by the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew). He was aware that a known football hooligan had gone abroad, but, although he had the courage to get hold of the Home Secretary to initiate an inquiry, nothing could be done. The Minister and the Home Secretary know that that frustration at not being able to do anything causes great resentment about our civil law. The hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) made an important point about the House being seen to take action for the long term, not just because the issue was a matter of the moment.
      I warmly support my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), although what the Home Secretary said was eminently sensible. The Home Secretary, the Home Office team and the police have done an enormous amount of work to close the loop on dealing with football hooligans, and the French have co-operated positively. I do not often go to football matches, and I am not an expert in crowd control, but I thought that it was a mistake to allow a lot of young over-refreshed football supporters on a beach in Marseilles to stand beside a temporary grandstand full of a lot of naturally over-excited—and, I am sure, well intentioned—Tunisians.
      That was a cocktail likely to go badly wrong. It is a pity that it went badly wrong, because, if there had been police between the sets of supporters, however awful it is that there should have to be police protecting the wretched Tunisians from British supporters and vice versa, I like to think that they would have stopped what happened.
      The Home Secretary is right to say that nothing can be done to guarantee the prevention of such incidents. I fully understand why the Home Secretary cannot tell me who is who and what is what in our football intelligence organisations. I wish them the best of luck as they do a very difficult job. They clearly did a very good job the night before last in spotting some of those people in Toulouse. However, it is a pity that, despite all the liaison and intelligence back-up, England was humiliated the other night by the behaviour of a small minority of disgraceful young men. That makes what happened in Marseilles even more disappointing and serious.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), who spoke with great authority, pointed out that drink was a major factor. I am sure that many of the young men—and not so young men—on the beach at Marseilles on the night of the match against Tunisia had had too much to drink. That was not the scene of the most premeditated violence; it seemed more spontaneous. However, some of the young men who go abroad seem ruthlessly and viciously determined to start fights. It is frightening that there is a core determined to wreak violence and havoc wherever they go. Those are the people we must deal with.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield wanted to enable a wider and broader restraint through restriction orders on more people. That is an admirable and sensible proposition that commands support on both sides of the House, although we may differ on how to go about it. I am glad that the Home Secretary has taken up some of our ideas, and I hope that they will work. I share his anxiety—for several reasons, not just connected with football—that the provisions should be on the statute book as soon as possible.
      742
      I hope that the Home Secretary will convey a message from me and every other former service man that any service man found guilty of having taken part in any of the serious offences will be brought back and disciplined with the rigorous application of military law. They should be court-martialled at once, and thrown out of the services.
      What has happened has undoubtedly damaged the good name of our country. It will have been watched with honor and anguish by our friends abroad, many of whom remember a more generous and spacious English spirit.
      Mr. Ashton: My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) mentioned the peculiar fact that there has been no violence from Scottish supporters. Somebody asked me last week why English supporters have rioted while the Scots have not. The answer is simple. The Scottish nationalists have a political party. They can channel their tartan fervour into politics. The English people who have rioted are fascists. There is a strong National Front element behind the riots that we have seen. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary cannot reveal all the details because of data protection laws.
      Such violence has not happened in this country since the Hillsborough disaster, because of better policing and video cameras. My good friend Detective Inspector Peter Chapman is in charge of football intelligence and often goes plain clothes into the crowd. He is about 5 ft 8 in tall; no one would think he was a policeman. He and his colleagues do a marvellous job.
      When England go abroad, the gang of National Front hooligans get together. Their greatest asset these days is the mobile phone. They all carry them to communicate with each other. They call themselves section 18: 18 represents the first letter of the alphabet, A, and the eighth letter, H, and stands for "Adolf Hitler". It is no coincidence that a French policeman was beaten over the head with an iron bar by a German fan. In Germany, those fans call themselves "the white knights". There is a fascist link-up. That is why such incidents do not happen in this country; they happen only when England plays abroad.
      The guy who was arrested in Marseilles—they called him the pig of Marseilles—comes from Naseby in Northamptonshire. He does not support any team—none of them do. The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) referred to a soldier who was among those involved. An art dealer was among their number, and one was a currency dealer from London. These were not working-class thugs. People on low wages do not have the money to go over to France and organise there. The network is known to the police, but it is very clever. It is not just a question of our imposing exclusion orders; it goes far beyond that.
      The problem does not exist among the Scots, who have a different nationalist fervour. The Irish, perhaps, have problems with a different kind of nationalism. We are talking about British nationalism here, and it is difficult to stamp out. The hooligans are well organised and have plenty of money. That is the perspective into which these things must be put. They are under continual surveillance but they are recruiting all the time, and are clever.
      Riots have happened in Dublin, Rome and now Marseilles. Marseilles is significant because of the Tunisian influence, Le Pen and the very strong French anti-immigrant or racist feeling there. It was an act of

      743
      incredible stupidity to take the first game to Marseilles, because the city has a huge Tunisian population and is very near Tunisia. The Tunisians do not have a vote in France—one of the strong complaints of immigrants in France. They will take the opportunity of an instance such as the match to demonstrate and to make a row about every grievance. They might try to stick it on the British—although I am not defending what happened.
      No matter how much we try, we cannot get across to British fans the fact that there is a difference in policing methods in Britain and on the continent. If there is a row, a riot or a punch-up in Britain, the police will move in to arrest and lock up the three or four people having the fight. That is not the case in France or Italy. They clear the streets. Their policy is "no arrests"—they get the riot squad, with their staffs and sticks, and clear the streets. If innocent bystanders get whacked, they get whacked.
      Time after time, I have told football supporters from our country not to think—because of that old nonsense about the Italians running away during the war while the British did not—that the Italians are cowards because they run away. Italians are taught from being kids that if they see the police come out with the riot sticks, they should run, because the police take no prisoners. Our British lads stand and watch, and they think that they are doing nothing wrong. When they get whacked, they start to protest—understandably. There is a different form of policing abroad.
      Let me refer to alcohol. Many years ago, we realised that, if booze was flowing freely and if people could buy a bottle of cheap supermarket wine for a couple of quid—as they can, even in our country—when people were hanging around in the sun with nothing to do and were tired because they had had a long drive or an overnight journey on a ferry, it was a recipe for trouble.
      One other thing sparks off trouble, and I regret having to say this—television cameras. I am not saying that we should not televise sporting events—that is democracy. But as soon as those lunatics see a television camera, they will try to get arrested. They will be in the news—the macho bandits showing off to all their mates all over Britain. They will be the cowboys riding into town with no law and order, and with a price on their heads. I have seen it during the miners' strike, on picket lines, at football matches and anywhere that a crowd of young men gather—even outside a pub on a Saturday night. If they think somebody is taking pictures, the violence gets worse. Even if we avoid television cameras, we still have to understand the macho thinking and attitude.
      No matter how much the police say, "Don't sell alcohol," cafe and restaurant owners in Italy and elsewhere see a big crowd coming into a city and see the opportunity to make a great deal of money. The French bar owners said that they had never seen people drink so much and remain on their feet. They said that about the Scots—but the Scots do not have that National Front organisation.
      The problem goes much deeper than football or violence on the streets. For young men now, there is no war. There has been no outlet since the Berlin wall came down. The Hillsborough disaster meant that our stadiums had to be all-seater and equipped with video cameras. There was no conflict. There was nowhere to have a punch-up. Schools have tended to cut down on sports, including football and boxing. The jobs where young men
      744
      could get rid of their energy—in the pits or the docks—have gone. They are attracted to the feeling of being in an invading army—like their fathers or grandfathers, who marched into Berlin or Tobruk with their rifles and hobnail boots. That is the British tradition.
      6.15 pm
      Let us not kid ourselves—the British are a violent race. We conquered half the world with the British Army, and we flogged them before the mast to get to Australia. We have always been a violent race, and it is nonsense to say that we can get it out of our system with cricket. It is time we accepted that.
      In terms of exclusion orders, Interpol should be involved. The French police said that the British told them about the villains, but that the villains came armed with a sheaf of papers and a thousand rules, and the police could not keep track of them. Nobody was there to say, "Nab him, nab him and nab the other one." While we have the EU rules on free movement, we will have free movement for crime as well. Whether it is drugs being brought in easily across boundaries or thugs crossing for football matches, it is an EU problem. It is time the EU started looking at that problem, rather than shifting it on to the French or British police.
      Mr. Lansley: I am grateful for the opportunity to add to what has been an interesting and important debate at an important time. I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton). I am sure that there is some truth in his comments about the impact of fascist and racist activity among English hooligans, but one must look abroad. In Germany and Holland, there is a record of fascist groups—and of football violence, but not to the same extent. Such violence is being controlled in every country and, in this country, it is being controlled substantially.
      It is incumbent on us to find measures to seek to minimise the opportunities offered to those who travel abroad under the guise of being English supporters and who seek, for whatever reason, to foment violence. The matters to which the hon. Member for Bassetlaw referred did not lie behind what happened in Marseilles to the same extent as may have been the case on other occasions; that was the burden of some of the interventions during the Home Secretary's speech.
      It is not immediately clear whether some of the notifications sent to the French authorities in relation to intelligence from NCIS gave rise to prior knowledge of the extent to which those individuals were the sort of characters to whom the hon. Member for Bassetlaw referred. The proposals in new clauses 10 and 11 might be especially useful in that context, although I quite understand that they can never wholly deal with those who seek to orchestrate and inspire violence. Those people will have to be tackled with the full rigour of the law, and the utmost care must be taken to try to establish the link between them and those in other countries.
      The most important aspect of this debate has been the Home Secretary's announcement that, as an immediate response, he spoke to his opposite number in France to apologise for what had happened in Marseilles. I have listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), to the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) and to other hon. Members, and I think it

      745
      incumbent on the House not only to apologise for what happened in Marseilles, but to demonstrate that we feel shame and a determination, as my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) said, to do what we reasonably can to ensure that such events do not happen again. In that context, new clauses 10 and 11—to which the Home Secretary made it clear he was responding—are particularly useful.
      I welcome the Government's proposal to increase the sentence from one month to six months. I accept that new clause 12 represents the Government's intention to make failure to comply with a reporting duty imposed by a restriction order an arrestable offence under the Football Spectators Act 1989, but—I am not speaking as a lawyer—the intention behind new clause 11 is not only to make such a failure an arrestable offence but to give a police officer the power to arrest someone who he believes is likely to fail to comply.
      Mr. Straw rose—
      Mr. Lansley: I happily give way to the Home Secretary if he wants to put me right.
      Mr. Straw: The point of subsection (2) of new clause 12 is to hook into section 24(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which contains a list of arrestable offences. Police officers also have a general power of arrest—I think under a further subsection to that section—in respect of any of the offences in the list. The power of arrest may be used where the police officer has reasonable cause to believe not only that an offence has been committed but that an offence is about to be committed. New clause 12 therefore does exactly what new clauses 10 and 11 would do.
      Mr. Lansley: I am grateful to the Home Secretary, not least for listening to the debate and being available to give the helpful clarification that the powers would apply when the police knew so much about an individual that they could see that he intended to attend a football match overseas, and would therefore not be available to report under the restriction order.
      Restriction orders have not met—indeed, in the current circumstances, we can say that they do not meet—the various needs. For example, it is clear from what the Home Secretary said that, when football-related offences have come to court, the police have sought restriction orders not as a matter of course but in very few cases—the number has increased only in recent months. One has to ask whether—even given the assurances that the Home Secretary gave in his response to the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler)—the courts will necessarily impose restriction orders in all the circumstances in which one would desire them to. The difference between the number of restriction orders that have been imposed and the number that would have been justified is dramatic.
      Ms Keeble: Will the hon. Gentleman define more specifically what the tests should be? If 4,000 such orders are to be imposed each year—that is the number of people who are convicted of offences under the legislation—that
      746
      would be incredibly difficult to police, which could bring the law into disrepute. What test would he use in imposing the orders that he suggests?
      Mr. Lansley: The hon. Lady raises an interesting point. I suspect that, shortly after this debate ends, those 71 or so people to whom restriction orders have been applied will be reporting at a police station, but, as far as I am aware—the Home Secretary will correct me if I am wrong—none of those people are known to have been in Marseilles last week. If, as the hon. Lady rightly says, restriction orders are automatically applied whenever a football-related offence has occurred, a substantial burden will be placed on the system—there is a risk that thousands of people would have to report to police stations and be monitored.
      Now may not be the moment, and I may not be the person, to specify all the circumstances in which a restriction order should be applied, but we need to recognise that restriction orders have not been applied in anything like the appropriate number of cases, and that it would be better if they applied more widely. Perhaps new clause 11 goes too far by making application automatic, but I believe that new clauses 10 and 11 combined would give rise to a different structure.
      Ms Keeble: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. If we are to vote on the new clauses, with which I am sure many people have great sympathy, we need to know—and it is fair to ask—in what circumstances the powers would be applied, so that we could be absolutely sure that the orders would be workable.
      Mr. Lansley: It is not for me to say whether we shall vote on new clause 11—from the way in which my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield spoke to the new clauses, I had the impression that he was focusing on new clause 10. New clause 10 would substantially add to the powers under new clause 12, which to some extent replicates new clause 11 in a way that the Government believe to be more appropriate. The difference between the proposals relates to the automaticity of the imposition of restriction orders in cases of football-related offences.
      I accept that new clause 11 represents a substantial step forward, but I believe that, just as it is incumbent on the Opposition in tabling new clause 11 to contemplate the heavy burden that would arise if thousands of restriction orders were applied where previously there were only tens, so it is incumbent on the Government in rejecting the new clause to show that perhaps hundreds, rather than tens, of restriction orders will be imposed. I am informed that some 375 exclusion orders have been imposed, but even that greater number may be insufficient to meet the need.
      As I said in an intervention on the Home Secretary—the right hon. Gentleman generously responded, but was not sure what point I was driving at—the evidence suggests that events in Marseilles, to which the hon. Member for Bassetlaw alluded, were not orchestrated by category C hooligans. The events arose because there was a critical mass of people susceptible to being violent in certain circumstances—that is, in effect, a description of category B hooligans. As the Home Secretary rightly said, even the best intelligence-led system with the best police spotters and video tape evidence does not equip

      747
      the police to identify in advance all those who are likely to commit violence in all circumstances—and a critical mass of such persons were in Marseilles.
      This country has enforced many measures that have had considerable success in identifying those likely to cause football violence. However, those measures are not sufficient to deal with a large body of persons travelling abroad to take part in a tournament; they go for a considerable time and many opportunities for violence arise.
      Under those circumstances, rather than concentrating only on the identification of individuals through systems that have worked well in the past, we must contemplate putting in place a system designed to frustrate the intentions of relatively large numbers of people who have engaged in football-related violence or who we have reasonable cause to believe could be engaged in it, from travelling to another country for a tournament.
      6.30 pm
      There is a certain element of rough justice in these matters, as I am sure my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield would not deny. However, such a system would substantially reduce the critical mass of supporters travelling; the number not travelling under the auspices of the Football Association supporters scheme; and those travelling without tickets.
      My second point to the Home Secretary in an intervention was that the substantial difference between his proposed response and the Opposition's two new clauses is that retrospection as regards the application of restriction orders would be prevented. The Home Secretary is right to say that one should not necessarily go down the path of retrospection and impose an additional penalty for those who have attended court, perhaps years ago, received their penalty and moved on. That is the sort of retrospection that the House would certainly be right to disavow. However, new clause 10 offers a particular benefit—the opportunity to request a court for an order to prevent someone from going abroad in pursuit of a designated match if there is reasonable cause to believe that he or she would engage in violence there.
      What would be the evidence? In most cases, I imagine that it would not necessarily be informants' advice or police intelligence, but rather the hard evidence of the person's having committed a football-related offence. A degree of retrospection is involved and it is an additional penalty for having committed an offence, but it is important that we find some mechanism by which to reach back into the large body of people who have committed those offences, and frustrate the opportunity for a large number of them to travel abroad, attend England matches and possibly participate in violence.
      That was the import of my two interventions on the Home Secretary and I feel strongly that my arguments demonstrate the importance of identifying the benefit of new clause 10 and not merely new clause 11, to which the Government have responded positively in two important respects. If we agreed to new clause 10, we would be able substantially to reduce the risk of the sort of violence occurring that occurred in Marseilles. The proposal would buttress measures that have until now rested on the identification of given individuals within groups travelling to other countries.
      748
      Overall, it is important to recognise that by such measures we may be able to restore a degree of confidence in the way in which English authorities deal with English supporters abroad. One difficulty that has arisen because of our failure to control English hooligans abroad—together with the French authorities, but we must take substantial responsibility—is that it has reflected badly not only on the English game and England but, potentially, on our ability to stage a tournament here.
      It is wrong for that to be the implication. The European championships in 1996 were a testament to how well we can stage such a tournament. Were England to stage the world cup in 2006, we could once again show how an extraordinarily well-managed and trouble-free tournament is run. It would be an immense pity if the events in France last week led to the conclusion that England could not manage international tournaments on its own territory again.
      If we can show that we are taking the additional measures necessary to control English hooligans abroad, we can get the focus back on to the success with which the authorities in this country have used NCIS, video tape evidence and so forth substantially to reduce the impact of football violence and to make football once again a popular sport and, in many instances, a family sport. On that basis, I hope that, by what we do and say this afternoon, we may promote England's cause for the world cup in 2006.
      Mr. Ivan Lewis: I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. Most Labour members of the Standing Committee were incredibly well disciplined in their contributions—I even refused to be goaded by a comment by the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) when he referred to the sadness of those people in Manchester who support Manchester City. I remind him that years in the wilderness do come to an end—he should consider where his party and mine sat in this House—and I hope that, in the case of Manchester City, it does not take 20 years.
      Both inside and outside the House, we should at every opportunity condemn the behaviour of English fans in France. We cannot allow any excuses to be made for them and their ilk—and there can be no hiding place, either. A consistent, all-party approach to the issue is important. At no point should there be any public perception that this is in some way a party political issue: it is not. We must also resist the temptation not to back the authorities in another country. If such behaviour were being perpetrated by foreign supporters in this country, imagine how we would feel were there any doubt about the Governments of their countries fully supporting our authorities in taking the necessary action. It is important that we give the consistent message that such behaviour is unacceptable.
      It is wrong to label football hooliganism as exclusively a football problem—in many ways it is a society problem. We should ask ourselves why so many young people in our society are so full of bitterness, aggression and hatred. We need to consider some of the behaviour on the streets in our cities, which has nothing to do with football, and question why we are creating citizens with so much venom, aggression and violence inside them.

      749
      A couple of weeks ago, a woman constituent in her mid-20s came to see me. She found it difficult to suppress her emotions and told me that, a week earlier, her 25-year-old boy friend had gone into the centre of Manchester for a drink with a friend and had come across two gangs of young people fighting and arguing. He had taken the trouble to intervene to break them up, only to be pursued by one gang, stabbed and, effectively, murdered. It is impossible to explain that level of hatred and violence—behaviour with which we find it so difficult to come to terms.
      Undoubtedly, some people hijack football to peddle their violence and aggression and, as has been said, in some cases, a right-wing political agenda—well organised and often co-ordinated. Such violence brings with it status and, too often, the oxygen of publicity. In any discussion of the problem, we must consider the responsibility of the press and the media and the way in which they report such incidents. There is a thin dividing line between naming and shaming those people and giving them the status that they actively desire among their peer group—other people who behave in that way.
      Not only the media and the politicians have a responsibility to respond to violence, aggression and inappropriate behaviour in football. The football authorities need to police football, and the behaviour of players on the field. What message is given to young people when sports stars publicly attack their partners, committing acts of domestic violence that seem almost to be an accepted part of celebrity status? Famous footballers are allowed to get away with that with no disciplinary action taken. What does that say about what is acceptable in football, and in the events surrounding it?
      Mr. Bob Russell: Should such players be sacked by their managers?
      Mr. Lewis: If I ran any organisation, whether a business or a football club—as I am a Manchester City fan, that is possible—I would undoubtedly feel that the recent behaviour of a famous international footballer justified his dismissal. The Prime Minister was right to talk of encouraging employers to sack hooligans. They must understand that the consequences of their actions will impact on every aspect of their lives. It is not acceptable to go to another country, have a bit of "fun", and come home to resume everyday activities. They should not be allowed to view their behaviour in that way.
      We should not forget that there is a direct link between the behaviour of those people and its economic consequences for the nation. It is not just our reputation that is at stake. There is a real risk of our losing international sporting events, such as future world cups, because of the behaviour of English fans abroad. That will have direct economic implications for the United Kingdom, and that is why there should be economic implications for individuals who perpetrate that behaviour.
      It is important not do anything with the law that is regarded outside the House as gimmickry. Legislation should be seen to be effective—to work. We need more time to reflect on the changes being proposed today. It is good to know that an all-party view is being taken about how we must treat and condemn hooligans.
      Mr. James Clappison: There has been a great deal of common ground in this good and constructive debate. The hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) and my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) were both right to say that our constituents expect us to have such a debate in the light of last week's events. We must consider what more we can do to counter such events.
      It was perhaps predictable that there would be condemnation during the debate of those events and the behaviour involved. There have been differences of emphasis on the two sides of the House about the underlying causes of those events.
      Having listened to the arguments about different causes, I believe that we would be unwise to discount any of them. Anyone who has listened to the debate will have been struck by the feeling on both sides that we need to do whatever we can to bring those events to an end. The Home Secretary took the House through both the Government's action and his response to our new clauses. In the light of what he said, I think that it was well worth our exploring what more we could do through the Bill to confront the problem.
      I must introduce one discordant note, although I do not want to. I must do justice to my own remarks on the Bill in the light of comments made by the Home Secretary. I was surprised to hear him follow the Prime Minister's example of quoting me as saying that the Bill was "dangerously unworkable". I did not ever say that in Committee. It is a quotation which the Home Secretary found in an article in The Sunday Telegraph. He had to trawl through the press cuttings library to find it, but what he has done shows the danger of quoting remarks out of context. He looks surprised; perhaps he did not have the whole article. If he reads it, he will find that it is about use of the anti-social behaviour order in neighbour disputes.
      The headline is "Neighbours risk jail in moves to curb `incivility'". It begins:
      "People who swear at irritating neighbours will be on course for a five-year prison term under plans drawn up the Home Office."
      It goes into some detail about that, quoting the secretary of the National Association of Probation Officers, Mr. Harry Fletcher, as saying:
      "The Bill rightly targets impossible neighbours, but every street has neighbours in dispute and it would be ridiculous if they all ended up in court."
      I am then quoted as saying that the proposals were "dangerously unworkable", and possibly in breach of the European convention on human rights.
      I was surprised that the Home Secretary did not acknowledge the context of my comments.
      Mr. Michael: Keep digging.
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Clappison: I shall dig a very big hole for the Home Secretary, because I was even more surprised, in the light of the Government's own guidance on anti-social behaviour orders, which was issued on the day the Bill began its proceedings. It was not available when my remarks were made to The Sunday Telegraph, but its first paragraph stated that the orders were intended to be used for criminal or sub-criminal activity, not for civil disputes between neighbours. I am surprised, therefore, that the Home Secretary reproaches me for agreeing with the Government, and for having probed what the Government

      751
      were trying to do, until they came to agree with me. Not once in the debates on the anti-social behaviour orders did we vote against them. If the Home Secretary is referring to consistency on the Bill, he is skating on very thin ice on a wide range of issues for himself and his hon. Friends..
      My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) was right to talk of the need to probe the definition of anti-social behaviour orders. He was also right to say that, although we have had reservations about the wide-ranging nature of the definitions, we all know what sort of thing we are aiming to bring to an end among football hooligans.
      The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) made some interesting points. He mentioned events in Dublin three years ago, which I and many members of the public will remember. There was a terrible disturbance involving English football supporters at an international so-called friendly. Such events have happened all too often, and they underline that, as well as condemning them, we must see what more we can do about them. My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) was among the hon. Members who spoke about that, making important points about the role of drink. My hon. Friend the Member for Woking, along with hon. Members on both sides, rightly drew attention to certain sinister people who go to football.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) made an important speech about discipline. He struck a chord with many of us by saying, with some authority, that any service man who takes part in such events should expect severe discipline. He was right to say that the sense of discipline that the Army engenders sets a good example on and off the sports pitch. One of the most important examples of Army discipline that I have seen recently was the good work done at the Colchester military correction facility—the young offenders experimental institute known as the glasshouse—with young offenders.
      My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) made a good speech, and teased out the Government's intentions on power of arrest. He will know that the police have been concerned that they should have a power to arrest people who look as if they will break a restriction order, and should be able to deal with them at that point instead of having to wait until later. He secured a valuable reply from the Home Secretary about his intentions in that regard.
      The debate was well worth having, and it was worth considering the proposed new clauses. The Government have accepted the point that we made in our new clauses about the need for a power of arrest to be attached. The police have sought such a power in the past. The Government have also accepted that there should be a stiffer penalty for people who breach restriction orders—one month is not enough; six months is more appropriate.
      We welcome the Government's assurances about extending guidance to magistrates courts and prosecutors, to ensure that restriction orders are deployed more widely. However, we put the Home Secretary on notice that, in view of the relatively small number of restriction orders made, it is important to examine the matter and ensure that more are made in the future. People who have been in trouble at football matches in this country should not be allowed to travel abroad and export that trouble.
      752
      We noted the Home Secretary's remarks about the future adoption of a football behaviour order, and we listened carefully to his reasons for not being able to accept the proposed new clause in its present form. While we were not entirely convinced by the largely technical reasons that he gave, we are prepared to join in any future consultations on the issue. It is incumbent on all hon. Members to do all that we can to resolve the matter. We cannot guarantee that such people will be prevented from travelling abroad and creating trouble, but the Government have accepted that we must do more than we are doing.
      We must reassure our law-abiding constituents—who surveyed recent events with absolute horror and felt a sense of shame at the damage that those hooligans did to our international reputation—that we are doing all we can within the ambit of the law to resolve the problem and to prevent such people from travelling abroad, sullying our name, causing damage and upset to other people, causing injury and becoming involved in criminal activities. We must be continually on our guard to see what more can be done. The Opposition will continue to approach the issue in that constructive spirit.
      Mr. Straw: I commend the speech by the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) and repeat my thanks to the Opposition for arranging the debate. I also thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for the spirit in which they have entered the debate.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) sagely warned the House about the dangers of enacting emergency legislation and of not examining propositions carefully when we agree with their objectives. That is good advice, but we must send a clear message that, despite differences of detail and emphasis, there is absolutely united opinion in the House—as I believe there is among decent people across the country—against those who commit violence and disrupt the enjoyment of football at home or abroad.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis) made something of a confession when he admitted that he is a Manchester City supporter. I regard that as a badge of honour. If he wishes to join the ranks of eccentric football supporters, he might encourage his colleagues on the Public Administration Committee to ask Mr. Alastair Campbell, the Prime Minister's press secretary, who will appear before the Committee tomorrow, how someone with such excellent professional skills could be a long-term supporter of Burnley football club.
      My hon. Friend has raised a serious point for Manchester City supporters—which also gives me an opportunity to rib Mr. Campbell yet again regarding his support for Burnley—as soccer provides great enjoyment to people not only through watching the game but by giving them a sense of place. It gives them an opportunity to share common experiences and to rib each other in a friendly manner. That is part of the richness of our society and of many others. For that reason, people are very angry to see a game that provides simple enjoyment to many millions of people besmirched in this way.
      The principal issue that we have debated is whether new clause 10 is sufficient to pass immediately into legislation in its present form. The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) chided me and implied that

      753
      I was unwilling to accept the new clause simply—I paraphrase his argument—because it was proposed by the Opposition. When I first entered the House 19 years ago, there was considerable debate across the Chamber. That was greatly to the credit of both sides of the House and the reputation of Parliament. I regret—both parties were at fault; I do not mete out blame—that debate in the House became coarsened during the 1980s. If the then Conservative Government proposed a measure, we felt that we had to oppose it by virtue of that fact, and vice versa.
      That showed great disrespect to our voters, and I do not believe that either party gained any advantage from such an approach. I determined—I think that this view is shared by my colleagues—that, if I sat on the Treasury Bench, 1 would not adopt that approach. I have sought to ensure that I listen to all propositions—that has been obvious with the Human Rights Bill and other legislation—and judge them on their merits. We did that as soon as the two new clauses were proposed. I accepted two parts of them, and I have explained how we can achieve a third proposition via a different route.
      We examined new clause 10 in detail and sought the views of both the Association of Chief Police Officers and the NCIS. I do not think that we could have consulted those organisations more promptly—they were contacted within the day. It may interest the House to learn that ACPO wrote to officials in my Department saying:
      "We agree with the principles expressed in proposed amendments … We have some concerns about the standards of proof required to obtain an order. We are concerned also about the legislative patchwork that is developing in relation to policing football matches. It may be appropriate to take a more considered view of the problems through existing European Union Working Groups."
      The NCIS wrote to an official to say:
      "Whilst the proposal to create a Football Behaviour Order may initially look attractive NCIS has reservations regarding the standard of proof that would be required to obtain such an order."
      It also raised the point, which I made, about the problems that would arise if it were necessary to provide details of current intelligence in order to obtain a football behaviour order. They are some of the problems with the current proposal for an order.
      The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) asked whether the Crown court rather than the magistrates court should have the power initially. That is a very sensible suggestion, which we clearly cannot consider in the time available. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) said that the Opposition had considered the idea of anti-social behaviour orders so that the Bill would contain workable provisions. I commend the Standing Committee and Opposition Members for doing so. However, that examination took a considerable period, and time is not available now.
      The hon. Member for Gainsborough said that it would take only one or two weeks to examine the Bill and put it in order. That is possible, but not likely, given the number of people we would have to consult and whom they would have to consult in turn—for example, ACPO would have to consult its members. Given the stage we are at in the parliamentary timetable, two weeks' delay would mean that the Bill could not become law until late October. By that time, many of those who had served
      754
      sentences in France would be back in this country. The additional powers of arrest and the extension of sentences from one to six months would not be available in respect of those who had been convicted of relevant offences in France and for whom the restriction orders could be obtained.
      I am grateful to all hon. Members who contributed to the debate. We are embarked on a common purpose to ensure that the national shame that has been heaped on our land in the past week as a result of the behaviour of some so-called supporters in Marseilles does not happen to that extent again, or, if it does, that even more effective measures are taken by courts both abroad and in this land properly and effectively to punish such people and so reduce the prospect of such behaviour ever happening again.
      As I have explained, there are difficulties with new clause 10. In the light of what I have said and of the undertakings that I have given thoroughly to consult the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) may see fit to withdraw the motion.
      Sir Norman Fowler: In view of the undertaking and assurances that the Home Secretary has given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New clause 1

      REDUCTION IN AGE AT WHICH CERTAIN SEXUAL ACTS ARE LAWFUL
      `.—(1) In subsections (1A) and (1C) of section 12 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (buggery), for the word "eighteen" there shall be substituted the word "sixteen".
      (2) In subsections (1) and (6) of section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 1967 (amendment of law relating to homosexual acts in private), for the word "eighteen" there shall be substituted the word "sixteen".
      (3) In section 13 of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995 (homosexual offences)—

      (a) in subsections (1) and (5)(c), for the word "eighteen"; and

      (b) in subsection (8), for the word "18", there shall be substituted the word "sixteen".

      (4) In paragraphs (1) and (5) of Article 3 of the Homosexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 1982 (homosexual acts in private), for the word "18" there shall be substituted the word "17" .' .—[Ann Keen.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      7 pm
      Ann Keen: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: Amendment (a) to the proposed clause, in line 2, after 'sixteen', insert
      `(except when one party is in a position of authority, influence or trust in relation to the other, in which case both parties must have attained the age of eighteen).'.
      Amendment (h) to the proposed clause, in line 2, after `sixteen' insert
      `(except when one party is over the age of twenty-one years, in which case the other party must have attained the age of eighteen).'.

      755
      Amendment (b) to the proposed clause, in line 3, leave out 'and (6)'.
      Amendment (c) to the proposed clause, in line 4, leave out 'word "eighteen"' and insert 'words "eighteen years'.
      Amendment (d) to the proposed clause, in line 5, leave out 'word "sixteen"' and insert
      `words "sixteen years (except when one party is in a position of authority, influence or trust in relation to the other, in which case both parties must have attained the age of eighteen years)".'.
      Amendment (i) to the proposed clause, in line 5, leave out 'word "sixteen"' and insert
      `words "sixteen years (except when one party is over the age of twenty-one years, in which case the other party must have attained the age of eighteen years)".'.
      Amendment (e) to the proposed clause, in line 5, at end insert—
      '(2A) In subsection (6) of that section, for the word "eighteen" there shall be substituted "sixteen, or as the case may be, eighteen".'.
      Amendment (f) to the proposed clause, in line 10, at end insert—
      `(3A) In that section, after subsection (8) there shall be inserted—
      "(8A) Where one of the parties to a homosexual act is in a position of authority, influence or trust in relation to the other, subsections (1), (5) and (8) shall have effect as if "eighteen" were substituted for "sixteen".'.
      Amendment (j) to the proposed clause, in line 10, at end insert—
      '(3A) In that section, after subsection (8) there shall be inserted—
      "(8A) Where one of the parties to a homosexual act is over the age of twenty-one, subsections (1), (5) and (8) shall have effect as if 'eighteen' were substituted for 'sixteen'.":.
      Amendment (g) to the proposed clause, in line 13, at end insert—
      '(4A) In that Article, after paragraph (5) there shall be inserted—
      "(5A) Where one of the parties to a homosexual act is in a position of authority, influence or trust in relation to the other, paragraphs (1) and (5) shall have effect as if '18' were substituted for '17'.".'.
      Amendment (k) to the proposed clause, in line 13, at end insert—
      '(4A) In that Article, after paragraph (5) there shall be inserted—
      "(5A) Where one of the parties to a homosexual act is over the age of 21, paragraphs (1) and (5) shall have effect as if '18' were substituted for '17'.".'.
      New clause 4—Circumstances in which certain sexual acts are lawful—
      `.—(1) In subsections (1B) of section 12 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (buggery), the words "(a) when more than two persons take part or are present; or (b)" shall cease to have effect.
      (2) In subsection (1) of section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 1967 (amendment of law relating to homosexual acts in private), the words "(a) when more than two persons take part or are present; or (b)" shall cease to have effect.
      (3) In subsection (2) of section 13 of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995 (homosexual offences), the words "(a) when more than two persons take part or are present; or (b)" shall cease to have effect.
      (4) In paragraph (2) of Article 3 of the Homosexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 1982 (homosexual acts in private), the words "(a) when more than two persons take part or are present; or (b)" shall cease to have effect.'.
      New clause 8—Abuse of position of trust—
      `(1) It shall be an offence for a person to whom this section applies to have unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of 18 years.
      756
      (2) This section applies to a person in a position of authority, influence or trust in relation to the girl with whom he has sexual intercourse.
      (3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for not more than two years.'.
      Government amendment No. 1.
      Amendment No. 6, in clause 119, page 95, line 14, at end insert—
      `( ) section (circumstances in which certain sexual acts are lawful)(3);'.
      Amendment No. 61, in page 95, line 21, at end insert—
      `( ) section (Abuse of position of trust)' .
      Government amendments Nos. 2 and 3.
      Amendment No. 7, in page 95, line 31, after `Sections', insert
      `(circumstances in which certain sexual acts are lawful)(4),'.
      Amendment No. 62, in page 95, line 31, after `Sections', insert
      `(Abuse of position of trust)'.
      Government amendment No. 4.
      Amendment No. 8, in schedule 8, page 157, line 21, at end insert—
      `113. In section 1 of the Sex Offenders Act 1997, there shall be inserted the following subsection—
      "(4A) Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, a person subject to the notification requirements of this Part by reason of an offence which ceases to be an offence after the commencement of sections (Reduction in age at which certain sexual acts are lawful) and (circumstances in which certain acts are lawful) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 shall no longer be subject to those notification requirements after the commencement of those sections.".'.
      Government amendment No. 5.
      Amendment No. 9, in title, line 5, after `trial:' insert
      `to bring the criminal law affecting homosexual acts more in line with the criminal law affecting heterosexual acts;'.
      Ann Keen: This debate is about equality. The purpose of new clause 1 is to make the age of consent equal for everyone. It is an all-party clause, which will be decided, as I believe it should be, on a free vote.
      It is fundamental in any democracy that the rights and responsibilities of all citizens are protected equally under the law. The question is whether that principle of equality should extend to gay men. We are one of the last nations in the European Union yet to legislate for equality on the age of consent. Just over a week ago, the Finnish Parliament passed a similar law, on a unanimous vote, without one speaker opposing it. A spokesperson for the Parliament said:
      "The politicians were more interested in other serious issues affecting the Crime Bill."
      Many of us taking part in this debate and the campaign as a whole regard the case for equality as so obvious that a full debate is needless, but I know that there is some opposition in the House. Not only do we have a tradition of full debate in the House, but I believe that it is important to have the arguments for new clause 1 recorded.
      The debate is definitely not about whether 16 or 18 is the right or wrong age for sexual activity to commence; it is about the abolition of discrimination, upholding the rights of individuals and supporting a community in

      757
      which responsible people seek to behave within the law, a community that feels the right to challenge archaic laws. Our legal structure discriminates against a part of our society. It has asked the House to reconsider an aspect of the law that perpetuates that inequality. I am confident that by objectively considering the facts before us on its behalf, we can uphold its request and amend our position to reflect today's values.
      When the age of consent was last debated in 1994, I listened from the Strangers Gallery. I heard the impressive contributions of the main proposers of the amendment: Edwina Currie, Neil Kinnock and the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan). I heard the dire protections of the opponents of equality and I heard our Prime Minister make his memorable speech. I heard the dire predictions of the opponents of equality, that any change in the law would lead to innocent young men being recruited into homosexuality. Of course, that has not happened—the sky has not fallen in—but in 1994 there was a fudge. The age of consent for gay men was reduced from 21 to 18, and the inequality remained. I believe that the law should be clear, certain and enforceable.
      The uneasy compromise of 1994 has already been challenged in the European Court of Human Rights. In the case brought by Euan Sutherland and Chris Morris, who were 16 and still criminalised by our law, the European Commission of Human Rights condemned our unequal age of consent. Such an inequality is a violation of article 8 of the convention—the right to privacy—and of article 14, which provides that the rights set out in the convention are to be enjoyed by all citizens without discrimination.
      The court did not accept that disapproval of homosexuality can ever in itself
      "constitute an objective or reasonable justification for inequality of treatment under the criminal law".
      In our country, with many different religions and cultural traditions, there will, of course, be those who regard lesbians and gay men as abnormal. I recognise that those views are sincerely held, but, as the European Court has said, they cannot be the basis of our criminal law. As the Wolfenden report said so long ago:
      "There must be a realm of private morality that is in brief and crude terms not the law's business."
      It cannot be the role of the state to work out people's sexuality for them. It is for individuals to work it out for themselves. The purpose of the criminal law in this area should not be to put police into bedrooms or to coerce gay men to be heterosexual. The purpose of the law is to protect the vulnerable and punish those who exploit them.
      My hon. Friends will agree that adolescence is not an easy time in life. For young gay people, it is often an especially difficult period. The higher age of consent for young gay men adds to their worries. The threat of criminal prosecution serves only to add to their sense of isolation and loneliness. How dare we rob young men of their teenage years, denying them years that they should use to prepare for adulthood?
      Mr. Allan Rogers: As I understand it, my hon. Friend's new clause is to allow sexual intercourse to be legal for a person aged 16. It is not in
      758
      any sense preventing people from being homosexual, heterosexual or whatever. It is purely to allow a 16-year-old to have sexual intercourse legally, not to deny anyone's sexuality.
      Ann Keen: My hon. Friend's point is incorrect. The purpose of the new clause is to make everyone equal under the law.
      New clause 1 is not only for gay people but for their parents. The current law provides no support to the parents of young people trying to come out to their parents. The law brands their children as not only different but criminal in its eyes. I have received many letters from gay men that talk about their experiences of growing up in society literally as criminals. These young men were terrified of revealing their developing sexuality, and faced abuse and bullying.
      One such young man was 16-year-old Albert Kennedy, who, in 1989, fell to his death from a top of a car park in Manchester while trying to escape a car load of what are described as "queer bashers." Albert was a depressed teenager. His short, tragic life had been filled with rejection. The threat of being branded a criminal could not have helped ease his mind, and it fuelled the prejudice of those who sought to persecute him. The Albert Kennedy Trust, a registered charity, was set up in 1989 in his memory, with the aim of ensuring that no lesbian or gay teenager need feel alone or unwanted, and that there is help to provide a positive home environment. Those who run the trust are adamant that equalising the age of consent and removing the threat of criminal prosecution is essential if we are to prevent future tragedies such as Albert Kennedy.
      The London Lesbian and Gay Switchboard is another organisation which helps young gay people. It has been in operation for more than 25 years, and has gained much respect and recognition. I visited its premises recently and discussed many issues with the voluntary staff. They told me about the silent calls made to the organisation by those who are too afraid to speak. Even if they speak to the voluntary staff across the Switchboard lines, they feel that they are breaking the law. Some of these young people try to pretend that they are older than they are. Some Members should visit the Switchboard. It is an excellent organisation. Having visited it, some Members may have a better understanding of the situation.
      I also have the support of the Hounslow youth counselling service, and I met some of its members on Friday. It is an organisation in my constituency which offers counselling and support to young people.
      Members opposing the new clause have every right to express their own views but I ask them to listen to those organisations that work with and for young people on a daily basis. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, along with other organisations and expert charities linked with the protection of young people, including Barnardos, has also expressed its support for the new clause, stating:
      "continuing discrimination stigmatises young people growing up gay and hinders them from developing a positive identity. Young people should and must be helped, not prevented from coming to terms with their sexuality."
      As it stands, the law does not protect young gay men against exploitation. It creates fear and secrecy, not openness and support. Young men are fearful of being

      759
      open with their parents or those adults to whom they would normally look for information, help and support. Prejudice protects abuse; it does not prevent it. I do not want our children to grow up to live in a world that has laws that discriminate and offend the right for everyone to be himself or herself. Fearful of being branded criminals, many young gay men are unable to seek health advice and sex education.
      In the past 10 years, we have learnt much about reducing sexual health risks. We know that personal health depends on good self-esteem, accurate health information, access to advice and support. All those essentials are undermined by our unequal age of consent. We compromise reputable agencies that cannot give practical support and advice, because to do so would condone sexual relations between young men that the law brands as criminals.
      Mr. John Butterfill: The hon. Lady mentions an unequal age of consent. She says also that the purpose of the new clause is to equalise the age of consent. That being so, why does she include the offence of buggery in subsection (1)? The age of consent for buggery is already equal at 18. The effect of her new clause would be to permit buggery of 16-year-old girls as well as boys. Will the hon. Lady explain why she seeks to do that?
      Ann Keen: I have already explained that I do not think that it is for the law to police people's bedrooms. We need to bring about a more open society where people can discuss their sexuality but with consent.
      As I was saying, in the past 10 years, we have learnt so much. All professional medical and nursing opinion has stressed the importance of changing the law. The British Medical Association has said:
      "Of prime concern to the medical profession as a whole are the concerns that the present law may inhibit efforts to improve the sexual health of young homosexual men".
      Nursing organisations have agreed with that sentiment, and say:
      "An equal age of consent would also enable the mental and emotional health needs of young homosexual men to be better met."
      Before entering Parliament, I was a district nurse. I worked with families and people who were affected by HIV and AIDS, and I was adviser to the centre of sexual health and HIV studies at Thames Valley university. With years of first-hand experience in the nursing and medical professions, I have been able to consider very carefully matters relating to health risks and the age of consent. I am convinced that the law as it stands is a serious threat to the health of young gay men.
      We should send one clear message to all young people. We need to say that we value the health of all our young people equally, and we will treat everyone equally. I pay tribute to organisations such as the Terrence Higgins trust, the National AIDS Trust, Body Positive, London Lighthouse and many other groups that have done, and continue to do, so much work in the gay community to promote safer sex. I agree with the sentiments that are set out in the Green Paper entitled "Our Healthier Nation":
      "good health is no longer about blame, but about opportunity and responsibility … tackling inequalities generally is the best means of tackling health inequalities in particular".
      760
      7.15 pm
      The law should give equal protection to all. It has been suggested that boys are more immature than girls, although there is some variance in the age of maturity. The important thing is that medical opinion is clear that young men of 16 are not particularly confused about their sexuality, or less mature. The law as it stands permits a young man of 16 or 17 to sleep with his girl friend, even to marry her. Yet if he is gay he cannot enter into any consensual sexual relationship with somebody of his own age. That is a ridiculous double standard.
      Of course unwelcome sexual attentions of a serious nature warranting criminal prosecution are equally offensive whether the victim is a man or a woman, gay or not. No means no, and the same law should therefore apply to all.
      The BMA report to which I have referred makes it clear that all the reputable research evidence shows that adult sexual orientation is usually established before the age of puberty in boys and girls. Other research tells us what common sense suggests, which is that the young gay man seeks relationships with people of his own age. One year is the average difference in age for gay partners when they have their first sexual experience. The myth of the vulnerable, confused young man was rejected by the Wolfenden report more than 40 years ago. It stated:
      "Our medical witnesses were unanimously of a view that the main sexual pattern is laid down in the early years of life and the majority of them held that it is usually fixed by the age of sixteen."
      The myth has been seen as such by professional medical and child care experts ever since. I hope that together we can finally lay that myth to rest.
      The principle of equality has already been accepted in many European and Commonwealth countries. Only a month ago, the South African supreme court swept away its discriminatory anti-gay sex laws, following the principles of the new South African constitution, which guarantees the rights of all minorities including lesbians and gay men. The example of South Africa is a powerful one precisely because it is a country which has had to learn to reconcile immense differences. It has had to find a way of including all its citizens in a new nation where the rights of all minorities are protected.
      The point that I make about the experience of other countries is not that we should slavishly follow them, but that in no case and in no society have negative predictions about the age of consent come to pass. We have to find our own path for our own country. The question before us is whether to treat citizens as second-class and less valued because their sexuality is different. We have to make that choice together tonight.
      The right to vote and the right to speak openly and freely are privileges that we take for granted. Let me remind the House how those rights were gained: at one time or another, Members of the British Parliament have taken brave strides to uphold the rights of individuals, and have convinced Parliament as a whole to introduce legislative change. This debate relates to the age of consent for a specific section of our community—the gay population.
      Controversial? Yes—but no more so than was the Representation of the People Act in 1918, the Sex Discrimination Act in 1975, or the Race Relations Act in 1976. This is yet another campaign for equality, and I am

      761
      privileged to speak on behalf of so many people. These have been busy and interesting times, and I have met some wonderful people. To have been in both Gay Times and Good Housekeeping in one week was indeed an experience, although my family believes I have no right to be in either.
      Many politicians who have served in the House have done much to advance the cause, including the former Member, Leo Abse, who is a constituent of mine and with whom I had the pleasure of speaking at the weekend; Humphrey Berkeley, who also lived in Brentford and Isleworth and who sacrificed his political career for this cause and continued to work for equality until his recent death; and many other right hon. and hon. Members who advanced the cause of equality. Of those outside the House, I pay tribute to Sir Ian McKellen, Michael Cashman, Antony Grey, the former director of the Homosexual Law Reform Society, Angela Mason and all at Stonewall and other organisations.
      Mr. Roger Gale: Will the hon. Lady give way?
      Ann Keen: No.
      I pay special tribute to all those individuals who have stood, with pride, to be themselves.
      Mr. Gale: Hon. Members are not supposed to read speeches in the Chamber.
      Hon. Members: Oh!.
      Ann Keen: I sincerely hope that the debate will concentrate on equality and justice for families, friends and constituents. Many of us who represent diverse metropolitan communities, none more obvious than our capital city of London, are well used to welcoming and celebrating the cosmopolitan life style that that diversity brings. However, many hon. Members represent rural areas, smaller towns and communities that are less obviously diverse, and, in such areas, Members of Parliament are less likely to be contacted by gay men. That is because of the feeling of isolation experienced by those regarded as different by their neighbours. It is even more important that they, the silent minority, are represented, because the need for equality is the same.
      Mr. Gale: On that point, will the hon. Lady give way?
      Ann Keen: No.
      We have the opportunity to move forward and to make a change. People rightly feel discriminated against. They feel a strong desire to live within the law and, confident that their case is justified, they believe that their voice will be heard. Tonight, the House can take a decision demonstrating that the voice of the communities we all serve will be listened to. By agreeing to the new clause, we shall signal once again that we have a House of Commons that will deliver equality and justice. We must take a positive step forward in creating a culture in which all law-abiding citizens are given the opportunity to live their lives openly and freely, confident that they will not be discriminated against.
      Mr. Gale: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It has been the custom and practice of the House over many years, first, to engage in debate and, secondly,
      762
      not to read speeches. If we are to be able to debate this subject in a civilised manner, it really is time that hon. Members stopped reading their speeches and started to allow other hon. Members to participate in the debate.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has been a Member of Parliament for quite a long time and he knows—[Interruption.] Order. It is entirely a matter for the hon. Member who is speaking to decide whether to give way to interventions.
      Ann Keen: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that many hon. Members wish to speak, and I have given way to hon. Members on both sides equally—that is equality.
      Families—mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters—who love and respect their gay family member are pained and angered when prejudice and criminal law discriminate against their loved one. It is about time that families were all equal. Those principles represent the foundation stones of the new clause, and they are the principles which we must endorse.
      The House has the opportunity to end discrimination, and we have to make a choice. We can take from the past those values of respect for others that are most enduring and translate them into the modern world, or we can simply cling to those old prejudices that have been most damaging and have forced generations of lesbians and gay men to live as second-class citizens. We have an opportunity to welcome all those men and women as equal members of our society, and, this time, we must take it.
      Sir Patrick Cormack: The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen) speaks with conviction and sincerity, and we have listened to her with respect, but I would ask her and those who share her point of view to consider for a moment that there is another point of view, and that it is important that it should be expressed in this debate.
      I speak, quite unashamedly, for the traditional, orthodox Christian point of view, which holds that homosexuality and lesbian practices are not another and an equivalent normality; and which holds that they are practices that not only are different from heterosexual behaviour, but should not be ranked as equal or equivalent to it. Having said that, I have no wish and never have had any wish to persecute or prosecute any man or woman for his or her personal behaviour. However, the House has to concern itself with many matters. The hon. Lady spoke eloquently about equality and she was right to do so, but there is another duty that is laid on each and every Member of Parliament, which is the duty to protect and to succour the vulnerable.
      The hon. Lady spoke of her background and of her experience as a nurse; she spoke with feeling and with great knowledge. Before I entered the House 28 years ago, I was, for 10 years, a schoolmaster, and I want to refer to that period in my life for a moment or two.
      During that period, I came across some extremely unhappy young men who had been preyed upon by older men, and whose whole manner and way of life had been changed and distorted as a result. Many of those young men were 15, 16 or 17 years old. I speak as the father of two sons who are now well over that age, and I do not

      763
      believe that a 16-year-old boy is indeed a fully mature adult. It is important that we take that into account in our deliberations this evening.
      The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) has recognised that issue in his amendment. If, by chance, the hon. Lady's new clause is carried this evening—I hope that it will not be, but suspect that it will—I hope that there will be massive support for the hon. Gentleman's amendment, which recognises the plight and the potential plight of the vulnerable and does something about it by stating that those in authority or in a position of trust who take advantage of young men or women should be subject to the full rigours of the law.
      It is not easy to talk about homosexuality. The most regrettable aspect of life today is that all forms of sex have been commercially exploited to such an extent that they represent a growing cancer in society. Many of those seeking to protect homosexuals are also, in my view, trying to go further and promote homosexuality. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I stand by my remark. I dare say many Members during the past week have received an envelope bearing the warning:
      "The enclosed homosexual literature is described by its publishers as sexually explicit, and its pornographic content may cause offence".
      The leaflet inside, put out by the Terrence Higgins Trust, certainly does cause offence. If it fell into the hands of innocent young men, it might tend to deprave and corrupt them.
      The commercial exploitation of sex, and television's lack of regard for childhood innocence, have gone a long way towards destroying that innocence. I deeply regret that; but there are still young men and women who are brought up to try to follow a Christian life. If any of them came across this sort of literature, they could find it pretty shocking.
      7.30 pm
      If we vote against the hon. Lady's new clause, we shall damage no one; but if we vote for it, we run the risk of damaging some people. I am content to accept that some may be born with a genetic predisposition to homosexuality—I am not medically knowledgeable enough to pass comment. I am convinced, however, that many people are not born homosexual—it is for them that we must have a special regard. Would anyone seriously suggest that every sailor who followed a homosexual way of life was born homosexual? One thinks of the old description of the Navy,
      "Rum, sodomy and the lash".
      [Laughter.] There is nothing funny about it: it is a perfectly reasonable point to make in support of my argument. We all know that in the last century and the early years of this one, there was a high incidence of the practice in certain walks of life—but I do not believe that every young man who followed that way of life was born to it.
      It is with regret that I must oppose the hon. Lady's amendment and hope that others will consider doing likewise. Our duty is to protect the innocent. If even one young man would be adversely affected by the amendment, we should take that seriously into account.
      Mrs. Angela Browning: One of the vulnerable aspects of 16 and 17-year-olds who may
      764
      be seduced or preyed upon by people of their own age group, or by older men, lies in the fact that it would be illegal to rape them, but not to have sex with them in the way that the amendment would allow. Any Member who has had to deal with a case of male rape will know just how difficult such cases are to bring to justice, how profound their effect on the victims are, and how painful such an experience would be for a 16 or 17-year-old.
      Sir Patrick Cormack: My hon. Friend makes an exceptionally valid and moving point.
      Mr. Michael Fabricant: If my hon. Friend takes the point that someone who has been raped finds it difficult to go to the police, would he agree that it would be even more difficult for someone to go to the police if, by so doing, he might lay himself open to a criminal charge?
      Sir Patrick Cormack: I can understand why many people adhere to that point of view. There is never a perfect solution to any problem of this nature. My own view, as I said at the outset, is that homosexuality is not equivalent to normality. Secondly, I do not believe that every homosexual is born homosexual. Thirdly, I do believe that 16-year-olds are especially vulnerable and deserve the protection of this House. That is why I oppose the new clause, and urge colleagues of all parties to think most seriously before they cast their votes.
      Mr. Ashton: My amendment—amendment (a)—has been signed by more than 30 Members, some of them senior Members of the House, of all parties. It is not anti-homosexual; it is designed to equalise the age of consent for boys and girls at 18, in certain situations. If my amendment were carried, I would also vote for new clause 1.
      Tonight gives us the opportunity to debate the most important report to emerge last year, even though it was never debated in the House. I refer to the Utting report entitled "People Like Us", which concerns safeguards for children living away from home. It makes horrifying reading; I urge every Member to read it thoroughly before casting any votes—I accept that that might prove difficult by 10 pm.
      In this country, 200,000 children live away from home; 110,000 are in boarding schools, and 50,000 live at any one time with foster parents; 2,600 15 and 16-year-olds are in prison on remand; many others are in hospital, private children's homes or local authority homes. Many of them have parents overseas to whom they cannot turn; many of them are abused.
      The list of abuses is horrendous—even stepfathers are sometimes abusers. The report says:
      "The Review was precipitated by past activities of sexually and physically abusive terrorists in children's homes. Such persistent abusers may be a small proportion of all those who harm children, but they create havoc with their lives. A single perpetrator is likely in a lifetime's career to abuse hundreds of children, who suffer pain, humiliation and torment, and incur permanent emotional damage."
      It is the fate of such children that led me to table my amendment, which I am glad to note many Members support.
      Mr. Rogers: Does my hon. Friend accept that many abusers of children in these circumstances are not

      765
      homosexual? The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) tried to classify people who might have served in the Navy, and so on, but it would be quite wrong—does my hon. Friend agree?—to suggest that all child abusers are necessarily homosexual.
      Mr. Ashton: I said at the start of my speech that the amendment deals with girls and boys. I have spoken about children, and the report is about children, not about homosexuality and discrimination. I am sorry if my hon. Friend has misunderstood practically everything that I have said.
      The Utting report was undertaken after the campaign carried out by Esther Rantzen's famous Childline, which said in evidence that it had found
      "a malignant institutional culture in such situations."
      Utting talks about going through
      "a crash course in human, predominantly male, wickedness."
      At page 30, it states that two thirds of fostered children in a London borough had been sexually abused, some of whom were seriously at risk. Foster children may suffer far worse abuse by people in charge than young people in other situations.
      I first examined the issue through a question in 1994, after the previous debate on this subject. I asked the Home Office to
      "list the age of consent for both men and women in each EC country."
      Throughout the EC,
      "a higher age may apply where the older person is in a position of authority, influence or trust".—[Official Report, 15 March 1994; Vol. 239, c. 600.]
      Those are the words in my amendment. I did not make them up—they were used in answer to my question, and the Home Office listed certain countries in which that applied.
      I have been asked how I define "authority, influence or trust". In 99 per cent. of cases, those words would define themselves, but I will give an example. Under my amendment, an affair between a teacher and a 16-year-old boy or girl would be perfectly lawful—if the teacher and pupil were not at the same school. If they were at the same school, however, and the teacher could be defined as being in a position of "authority, influence or trust", the parents of youngsters at the school would be angry, and would naturally say that what had happened was not fair, what the public wanted, or what Parliament wanted or intended with respect to equality. In such circumstances, the age of consent should be 18. The amendment does not discriminate against gays; it would lift the age of consent for girls to 18 in such circumstances.
      Ms Jean Corston: Several hon. Members, myself included, have some sympathy with the points that my hon. Friend is making, but does he accept that many of us would feel uneasy about introducing the criminal law into the matter? He is discussing an abuse of a position of trust. Surely if we are to have a law that confronts abuse of a position of trust at work, it should
      766
      be an employment matter under the civil law, where there is a lower standard of proof. It certainly should not be dealt with under the criminal law.
      Mr. Ashton: I fully understand what my hon. Friend says and will come to that point in few moments, if she will bear with me. I can try only to amend existing law, and if that law provides for two years' imprisonment, that is what I have to put in the amendment. This is not a Second Reading debate; we are discussing my amendment, which therefore has to tie in with existing law—that is the criminal law aspect of it.
      The deterrent of law is badly needed in such situations. The report says that young prisoners are often bullied—they are not protected by the Children Act 1989, and have no immediate family support. The report says that young people told Utting and Childline of their bewilderment and alienation when adults whom they trusted betrayed that trust.
      Those who are abused often become abusers. The report says that sexual abuse is highly addictive. Boys or girls who are abused, but who are not old enough or physically strong enough to stand up to it and protect themselves, often run away. In February, a newspaper article announced a "Child sex crackdown" by the Government and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health. I was glad to read that, because
      "242 children a year are estimated to fall victim to these rings"
      in institutions
      "which are complex to investigate and profoundly traumatic".
      I welcome that, but what is happening?
      Children run away. Where do they run away to? They run to the streets and become homeless, rent boys or young girl prostitutes, because they have known nothing else. Some have committed crimes, such as setting fire to empty houses, to get away from an abuser. They say, "I'd be better off in gaol or a young offenders' establishment than in this place." Regrettably, the House seems to have done little about that culture, except to publish a report.
      Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that a number of people in our society—male and female, at the tender ages of 15, 16 and 17—are exploitable by virtue of deprivation, their background or goodness knows what else? He is seeking to protect such people, and I support that. Where they are exploited by pimps and users and put to work for their benefit, there is little, if anything, that we can do if they are over 16. Under his amendment, we would at least be able to start to protect the vulnerable in our society, for whom no one apparently cares.
      7.45 pm
      Mr. Ashton: My hon. Friend has wide legal experience, and I am glad that he has put his name to my amendment. I take on board everything that he has said.
      Utting says that, all too often, staff and employees accepted bullying and sex abuse—they took no notice of it. There was a restraint on whistleblowing, and telling the boss, or a council, or objecting to what was going on was frowned on. Utting examined an unpublished Department of Health report which considered 44 residential homes and 50 separate cases. Abuse was endemic among those in

      767
      "a position of particular responsibility, authority and trust",
      often managers of homes who had
      "been in post at least 5 years."
      The report says that abuse was not opportunistic, and
      "victims were 'groomed' and 'counselled'"
      over a long time. When they reached an age at which they could defend themselves, they were put on one side, and another generation came through. For example, Roger Saint, the paedophile, was allowed to foster children over 13 years, even though social workers in his area knew that he had previous convictions. Utting said that some people were experts in convincing parents and evading justice—there was a worrying acceptance by staff and managers.
      Another case involved John Allen, of Bryn Alyn private children's home. Some of my hon. Friends said, "Prosecute and go to law.". That happened—cases were taken to a tribunal and then to law, and 2,500 witnesses and 500 separate allegations were involved. After all that, the result was six convictions. The report says that Frank Beck, the head of an establishment in Leicestershire who is now serving life imprisonment, inspired physical and moral fear among staff as well as children. Ralph Morris, who is serving 12 years, was investigated three times and evaded the law.
      We have recently taken great steps by introducing a paedophile register, and 110,000 people who have convictions are on it. Utting says, however, that probably as many child abusers have never had a conviction, are not on the register, and are carrying on their activities. Abuse in a private school or when a council is responsible for children makes the headlines, which is embarrassing and a scandal, so local people or parents protest loud and long. When schools or councils find that abuse is taking place, they tend to sack the person involved to get rid of him, so he moves on and carries on as normal.
      Mr. Richard Burden: I am following what my hon. Friend says with care. I am sure that the House is unanimous on the need to take seriously the abuse of young people. Am I not right in thinking that my hon. Friend's amendments would mean that, if a young person was abused by an older person short of intercourse, but certainly against that young person's will, he would not be protected by the amendments? However, if a young person aged 17 had consenting sex with another young person aged 16, he would be criminalised under the amendments. Is not my hon. Friend trying to hit the wrong target?
      Mr. Ashton: The definition refers to authority. I am not presenting a Bill; it is not a Second Reading—it is an amendment. These matters have to be argued in a court of law. We have to define "trust", "influence" and so on—and eventually the courts will do that. In 99 per cent. of cases involving foster parents and stepfathers, for example, the question answers itself.
      I have referred to the fact that there are 110,000 names on the paedophile register. Utting was critical when he said that the consequence of that sort of abuse is that the man is simply dismissed, and he moves elsewhere. What about checking applicants for jobs? With today's technology, if I were to hand over my credit card to someone, he could find out my credit rating within two
      768
      minutes and then decide whether to give me a loan or allow me credit. However, as Utting said, in many cases it took local police authorities weeks or even months to check job applicants for a criminal background. By that time, they had been given jobs and it was difficult to get rid of them. Utting said that most sex offenders abuse children for many years before they are caught.
      It is not just a question of sacking people—it is far worse. Often, councils are scared of having to pay out a great deal in damages—criminal injuries compensation. One thing that I am proud of, in my small way, is that about eight years ago, when I was a member of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, we held an inquiry into criminal injuries compensation. We looked at different cases and questioned officials.
      A man was in prison for having sodomised his wife and stepson, and he had been beaten up by the other prisoners. He put in a claim for criminal injuries and was refused. I asked the officials, "Who put in a claim for criminal injuries on behalf of the stepson?" There was a deadly silence—the answer was nobody. Until then, no one had ever applied for criminal injuries compensation for the children who had been abused, but they soon started after we published our Select Committee report.
      The Municipal Mutual Insurance Company has expressed almost terror at what it would cost if all the cases resulted in compensation. I understand that councils have been told, "Don't publicise these cases, or we will have to pay severe damages because you are supposed to look after these children." There has been a culture of hushing things up.
      It is obvious that, in such cases, there must be some legal deterrent. It can no longer be, "Don't say anything; keep quiet; we have sacked the man and we hope it will not happen again." I understand that there is a disqualifications regulation for the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Employment, but it does not apply to foster parents. Social services has a system to bar or restrict foster parents. It reports dismissals and resignations, and makes about 100 teacher referrals a year to the Department for Education and Employment.
      However, the system is not working. The number of prosecutions for indecent assault on children is going down and down. Last year, the figure fell to 12 per cent., partly because children do not make reliable witnesses. Lawyers harangue them in court, so councils have stopped going to court, and the abuse is perpetuated. That cannot continue.
      I understand that my hon. Friend the Minister intends to make some comments on this point when he replies. I shall listen with great interest. If he is thinking about changing the laws on employment, for example, he should remember that that would not cover a stepfather or foster parents.
      Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I wonder just what is my hon. Friend's target. He seems to be arguing for an extension of the list 99 procedure—the list that prevents teachers, even when they have not been prosecuted, from continuing as teachers. As my hon. Friend has acknowledged, there is a similar list for social workers. He is arguing for an extension of that ban on

      769
      employment and contact with children, in a position of trust, to youth workers, stepfathers and so on. That is an entirely different issue from the one that we are debating.
      Mr. Ashton: I hear what my hon. Friend says. The Utting report dealt with the points that he makes. Some 5 per cent. of convicted paedophiles get through the net. The system is not working.
      I had telephone calls this morning from my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Health and for Education and Employment. They are very good friends of mine. Both of them support the amendments—it is a free vote, so they told me that I could say that in the House tonight. I ask hon. Members to vote for the amendments.
      I want to end with a quote from the Childline submission to Utting:
      "Regimes of abuse prosper because people turn a blind eye. Again and again adults consider it much more serious for a fellow adult to face the ignominy of being found responsible for sexual misconduct, than for a child to be assaulted."
      My amendments are not anti-gay; they are not against equalising the age of consent—they are to protect children.
      Mrs. Eleanor Laing: In supporting new clause 1, to which I have put my name, I am well aware, not least because of the feeling around me, that I am not supported by many of my hon. Friends. It is a most unusual, not to say uncomfortable, experience. I had only just got used to standing up in the House without trembling, but now I remember what it was like.
      I am also aware of the concerns of my constituents about the new clause. Some of them are in favour; many are not. My constituents are a good reflection of opinion throughout the country—many people support reducing the age of consent, but many others do not. I have consulted medical opinion of all sorts and come to the conclusion that there is no conclusion. Medical opinion is varied; it is not decisive—just as public opinion is not decisive.
      Of late, there has been much emphasis on opinion polls and focus groups, but we must not lose sight of the fact that it is sometimes necessary to do not that which makes one popular, but that which is right. That is why I, instead of being popular this evening, am supporting the new clause.
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am happy to ask this question of a colleague who is also a woman Member. Am I not correct in saying that a homosexual act is unnatural and that if the Lord Almighty had meant men to commit sodomy with other men, their bodies would have been built differently? Have not the activities of the homosexual community been one of the main sources of both AIDS and hepatitis?
      Mrs. Laing: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but it is not for us to interpret one way or another what the Lord God Almighty intended.
      Mr. Winterton: Is my hon. Friend a Christian?
      Mrs. Laing: Although that is not relevant to the new clause and the hon. Gentleman has no right to ask such a
      770
      question, I shall answer by saying that I most certainly am a Christian and it is not for me to question what the Lord God Almighty has or has not done.
      Mr. Desmond Swayne: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mrs. Laing: No, I have already given way.
      I have explained why I support the new clause. Its effect is not to challenge the Christian teaching of the Church—I would never support any measure that did—nor is it to challenge family life based on Christian marriage and traditional moral principles as the norm in our country and the building block of our society. The new clause does not challenge that in any way whatever.
      I have three main reasons for supporting the new clause. First, I believe in equality. Having said that, I do not believe that all people are equal. They are not: every person is different in some way from every other person. The equality that the new clause addresses is equality before the law, and I believe that everyone should be equal before the criminal law. I stress that I am referring specifically and precisely to the criminal law. If new clause 1 becomes part of the Bill, there is no automatic or necessary implication for the treatment of gay people under the civil law with regard to marriage, pension rights or any other such rights. That is not what we are discussing, it is not the matter before us, and it has no relevance to this debate; we are talking about equality before the criminal law.
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: My hon. Friend is a very courageous lady, but does she not understand that many of those outside the House who support this measure see it as a first step towards treating such life styles equally in every respect, including pension rights?
      8 pm
      Mrs. Laing: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. He may be right about some minority groups, but they certainly do not have my support. He may be right, but that is not the point that we are debating.
      My second reason for supporting new clause 1 is my concern that young people should be protected. I respect the views of the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), which were eloquently expressed. I do not agree with him on every point, but I respect his general view of the matter.
      I entirely agree with the intention of the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), who gave a good explanation of his proposal. He is absolutely right to say that, if an adult person has a duty of care towards a young person, there should be no sexual relationship of any sort between them. No harm would be done to the intention of new clause 1 if the hon. Gentleman's amendments to it were accepted. My only doubt is that I am not certain that his amendments, as drafted, would accomplish what he seeks to achieve. However, I agree in principle with the points that he made, which do not contradict those that I am making.
      Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: Bearing in mind what my hon. Friend has just said, does she agree that

      771
      every adult has a duty of care towards children? Does not that have implications for how we should change, or perhaps not change, the law?
      Mrs. Laing: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. It is true that every adult has a duty of care towards children, but the law recognises degrees of duty of care. That is a matter of fact in law. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw spoke about particular duties of care, with which I agree. I consider that the amendments would not negate the intention of new clause 1.
      It is extremely important to protect young people. It is incredible that some people argue that young boys have to be protected whereas young girls do not. That is nonsense: it does not make sense. Young girls have to learn how to cope with predatory men. Perhaps it is frivolous of me to say this, but it is not only young girls who have to cope with predatory men-—[Laughter.] The reaction of hon. Ladies on the Labour Benches shows that they appreciate that this problem has been faced by half the human race since the beginning of time.
      The argument that boys must be protected more than girls is unsustainable. Do boys' parents not warn them of the ways of the world, as girls' parents do? I can tell from the reaction of hon. Ladies on the Labour Benches that I am right in assuming that my mother is not the only wise lady in the world: there must be other wise mothers who give advice both to their sons and to their daughters. It is nonsense to say that there cannot be equality between 16-year-old boys and 16-year-old girls.
      Young people need protection, but they are not protected by being turned into criminals. It is that point, more than any other, that we must address this evening. We do not protect young boys or girls by turning them into criminals. If we are to consider this matter properly, we must distinguish between what is legal or illegal under the law and what is encouraged and discouraged by society.
      Nothing that is proposed in new clause 1 in any way encourages physical sexual activity among young people before they are sufficiently mature.[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) is disagreeing with me from a sedentary position. Nothing in the new clause encourages young people to become involved in sexual activity before they are sufficiently mature to do so. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) says that I live in a sheltered world.
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: No, I said that my hon. Friend is living in a strange world.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I want to discourage sedentary comments from either side of the House.
      Mrs. Laing: I can assure all hon. Members that I live in neither a strange nor a sheltered world: I spend my days in the House of Commons. [Laughter.] We do not help and guide young people in their personal relationships by applying the criminal law.
      Dr. Julian Lewis: I very much admire my hon. Friend's courage in taking this unpopular stance with which I disagree. Having listened very carefully to everything that she has said, I infer that the
      772
      argument that she is deploying is an argument against ages of consent in general. The purpose of an age of consent is not to criminalise the children who have sex when they have not reached that age of consent; it is to protect the children below that age by criminalising the adults who have sex with them. Does she not recognise that the history of the age of consent for heterosexual sex has been that, as society has evolved and become more civilised, the age—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I also want to discourage long interventions.
      Mrs. Laing: I entirely take the point that my hon. Friend has eloquently made, and I do not disagree with him. I believe that what he was about to say was that the age of consent has changed as society has changed.
      Dr. Lewis: It has risen.
      Mrs. Laing: My hon. Friend says that it has risen, but it has not necessarily risen. I have to tell him that the age of consent in Scotland was always different from that in England, for example. That is why Gretna Green became the place to which people ran away to get married. It is not for me to say that girls born and brought up in Scotland were more mature than girls born and brought up in England—that cannot possibly be true—but these anomalies have existed.
      The point of substance that my hon. Friend made, which I am very pleased to address, is that there has to be an age of consent. He is wrong in supposing that I am arguing for no age of consent at all. I am arguing for an equal age of consent, but it is possible that that age of consent could be 16, 18, 21 or anywhere in between.
      It is also extremely important that Parliament should not make laws that are unenforceable. If, at the end of the 20th century, where we now find ourselves, we were to try to equalise the age of consent at 18, we would be making a law that was unenforceable, and a law that is unenforceable is bad law. It is not for this Parliament to make bad law. I entirely take my hon. Friend's point, but it only strengthens my argument that the age of consent should be equal for all people and should be 16.
      As I was saying before that last helpful intervention, we do not help and guide young people in their personal relationships by applying the criminal law.
      My third reason for supporting the new clause is that I believe, as do most people, that sexuality and sexual behaviour should be a private matter. I have every respect for some of the pressure groups that have been acting on behalf of homosexual people—Stonewall, for example, is measured and reasoned in its campaigns—but with respect I have no sympathy whatsoever for militant groups such as OutRage! that want to publicise the cause of homosexuals at all costs. They do no good to the people they purport to represent, and they do no good to our society as a whole. There should be no need in this day and age for massive marches by gay people through the streets of our main cities, any more than there should be any need for such marches by any other group in society which happens to be in some way different from others.
      Let us make the criminal law fair and equal, then let us agree that sexuality and sexual behaviour is and should remain a private matter. Let it remain private, and let

      773
      people who are gay get on with their lives in private and in peace and without making such a fuss about it—that is, if we decide this evening to bring equality to the criminal law in the way in which gay people are treated. Once that has been achieved, there is no reason for the fuss that is often made to go on. Let all the publicity-seeking pressure groups accept that equality will have been achieved, and let them leave the rest of society in peace.
      8.15 pm
      Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Like the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), last Thursday I celebrated the 28th anniversary of my election to the House of Commons. This is my eighth Parliament and I am proud to be a Member of Parliament but, looking at the House, I sometimes think that the only thing worse than having this House is not having this House.
      We in this Chamber sometimes congratulate ourselves on our record of social reform, but we have little right to do so. I listened to the admirable and eloquent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen). There was one part of what she said with which I disagreed—when she said that, if the House passes the new clause that she has proposed it will be a brave step. It will not be a brave step at all; it will be a belated step, a reluctant step and a step that should have been taken in equity and fairness and decency long ago.
      We in this House have witnessed debates in which social reform has been slow, reluctant and belated and in which, again and again, disingenuous arguments have been trumped up to prevent or delay the passage of what in equity should be obvious.
      I listened to the hon. Member for South Staffordshire talking about paedophiles preying on young people. Paedophiles prey on young people today under the present state of the law, with an age of consent of 18. They preyed on them when there was an age of consent of 21, and they preyed on them when male homosexual acts were completely illegal. The hon. Gentleman talked about the material which has no doubt been sent to all of us by the Terrence Higgins Trust, describing homosexual acts between men that are illegal before the age of 18. These things are taking place now. It is not as though some terrible door is being opened through which all kind of horrors will rush. Hon. Members have been talking about the situation today.
      I have listened to many arguments in many debates in which people tried to hold up reforms that ought not to have been necessary because the restrictive legislation should never have existed. For centuries, the House maintained the denial of rights for the majority by the minority—for example, the denial of rights for women. The majority has always denied the rights of minorities. This House only relatively recently abandoned its denial of membership to Catholics, Jews and atheists. This House has persistently entrenched racial discrimination, and, on the issue before us now, it has a miserable record. A majority, using this House, has sought to impose its sexual orientation on those with a different sexual orientation.
      Whenever this subject comes up, new arguments are laboriously dug up to justify the repression of a minority by the majority. The latest argument—the hon. Member
      774
      for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) deployed it this evening—is AIDS. When homosexual acts between consenting males were made illegal, AIDS did not exist, but they were nevertheless made a criminal offence.
      When the Abse Bill—to which my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth referred—was considered by the House 30 years ago, the age of decriminalisation was set at 21. Although AIDS did not exist then, other arguments were made to oppose that Bill.
      Four years ago, when the age of consent was lowered to 18, AIDS was part of the sexual scene, but no great plague of AIDS has broken out among 18 to 24-year-olds since that change in the law. Heaven knows, if it had, we would have heard of it already, both in press articles and in the speech of the hon. Member for South Staffordshire.
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the whole point about AIDS is that it takes years to reveal itself? It is unlikely that he would see very quickly the effect of AIDS on someone who has contracted it since the younger age of consent was established.
      Mr. Kaufman: That is exactly the type of bogus nonsense that one hears constantly on these matters.
      I have two further comments on the argument about AIDS. First, the best way of controlling AIDS among people involving themselves in male homosexual acts is to ensure that there is an age of consent that allows people to gain access to information, and enables them without fear of criminality to seek medical advice and medical help. Allowing such access will be one of the extremely desirable by-products of passing new clause 1.
      Secondly—I go further—it is a very great myth indeed to imply that AIDS arises only through homosexual contacts. The great wave of AIDS that passed over the planet started in east and central Africa because of heterosexual intercourse. It is therefore a slander on people involved in homosexual sex to say that they and only they will propagate or are subject to AIDS.
      Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Kaufman: No; many hon. Members are waiting to speak.
      Nor—although I understand the motives of my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton)—is it accurate to say that lowering the age of consent will create greater opportunities for paedophilia. Paedophilia has existed whatever the law on age of consent for males or females, and I fear that it will continue to do so even when we have passed new clause 1—as I hope we shall today.
      If new clause 1 is passed, it will decriminalise only consenting sexual acts between males that are legal between males and females.
      Opponents of new clause 1 assign prurience to the homosexual act. Whenever we debate such matters, words such as "sodomy" and "buggery" are used to make ugly such sexual acts, but it is hon. Members who are being prurient by their action. In the House, whenever we discuss sex of that kind and within that context, those who are seeking to maintain oppression and repression of a minority see only the carnality of the sexual act. They

      775
      regard such sexual acts as acts of carnality, not as acts of people participating in an act of love according to their sexual nature.
      The great lyricist and composer Stephen Sondheim wrote a musical called "Passion" about the repressed passion of a woman for a man. In it, the woman speaks in her mind a line to the man, saying
      "Loving you is not a choice".
      Loving is not a choice. People do not choose their sexual nature; they are endowed with their sexual nature. Opponents of the new clause are saying that of all the billions of creatures on the face of this planet, the only ones to be banned from expressing that love according to their nature are homosexual males aged 16 and 17 and those who love them.
      Today, the new clause will undoubtedly be passed—I shall certainly be voting for it. When it is passed, it will be a moment of achievement in which we should take satisfaction. However, when we pass it, the House should not be smug or congratulate itself. Although the new clause will be a belated act of reparation, many more injustices will remain to be put right.
      Mr. Richard Allan: The Liberal Democrats have a clear policy agenda that seeks to promote fairness for all people before the law. Our agenda has led us to debate at our party conferences the issue that the House is debating today, and to come down clearly in favour of equalisation of the age of consent, as proposed in new clause 1. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen), who spoke very well. Her speech would have gone down very well with many people in my own party. I pay tribute also to the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) for some of her measured comments on the legal nature of the issue.
      As with the other parties, we shall be treating the matter as a free-vote issue. Although I speak as an individual Member on the issue, I am confident that many of my colleagues will agree with the views that I express.
      The debate has frequently been examined in terms of politicians sending out a message to the people of the United Kingdom. On the one hand, we are urged to send the message that heterosexuality is the norm, and that the law should be used somehow to discourage homosexuality. Conversely, we are asked to send out a message of equality, saying that the law must be changed to make it clear that we are not discriminatory. Tonight I should like to leave behind the politics of messages, and instead to focus on the proper relationship between the state and 16 and 17-year-old citizens of the United Kingdom.
      We have two clear priorities to balance in setting an age of consent for sexual activity. The first is the duty of the state to offer protection to those who are being abused sexually. We must have a legal remedy available for those suffer from unwelcome or inappropriate sexual attention. The second priority is the right of any individual citizen to express his or her sexuality in a consensual way without undue interference from the state.
      776
      I do not believe that it is my job as a Member to tell people what they can or cannot freely do in their bedroom, any more than I would be happy for any other hon. Member to come into my bedroom to try to tell me what I should do in my sex life.
      Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Allan: I give way to the hon. Gentleman, although I am sure that I shall regret it.
      Dr. Lewis: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I am sure that he is correct. When he talks about the rights of citizens, will he not just remind himself that we are talking not about citizens or adults but about children of 16 and 17?
      Mr. Allan: The hon. Gentleman reminds of a point that I had planned on making later in my speech—that we are talking about citizens who are able to go out and get a job, leave school, get married and pay taxes. Those are the citizens we are talking about.
      I do not believe that the current law works well in ensuring that the state performs its duty of protection. Indeed, current law may have the reverse effect—of making young people more vulnerable. The vital fact to remember is that, currently, if a 16 or 17-year-old has homosexual relations, that 16 or 17-year-old is himself committing an offence. In such relationships, the law does not nicely discriminate and prosecute only older people. Two 17-year-olds together would still be guilty of an offence.
      Opponents of new clause 1 raise two principal concerns about young men in such situations. The first is the notion that the young man may be experimenting, and may not have settled his sexuality. Arguments have been advanced to the contrary. Moreover, even in situations in which a young man is deemed to be experimenting, I cannot think of anything worse for the law to do than to deny that young man the ability to seek the advice and guidance he needs because he is aware that he has committed a sexual offence for which he may be prosecuted.
      The second concern is that the relationship may be an abusive one, typically described as one with an older man. The facts from surveys show that the vast majority of such relationships—like any other relationship—are between people of nearly the same age. However, even if an older man is involved, I cannot think of anything stronger that we could put in the hands of an abuser than the ability to tell his victim, "Don't go to the law, or you'll be prosecuted." I cannot think of anything that would make abuse more likely than providing such a tool to any individual who chose to be abusive. A change in the law is essential.
      Mr. Butterfill: Can the hon. Gentleman give us an example in which the younger person in such a relationship has been prosecuted?
      Mr. Allan: I was talking about the fear of prosecution, rather than what may happen later. The hon. Gentleman cannot deny that the law as drafted states that such a young man has committed an offence. That fear of prosecution can affect young men and ruin their lives.

      777
      A change in the law is essential if we are to free young men of 16 and 17 to seek any advice they may need to cope with the sexuality.
      If it could sensibly be argued that setting the age at 18 would ensure that no 16 or 17-year-old would ever had sex, there might be some purpose in doing so, but I can remember being that age not so long ago, and I can honestly say that I never consulted lawyers before exploring my sexuality—not that I could have afforded them. I do not believe that the vast majority of young people consider the law before exploring their sexuality. They will go ahead irrespective. The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) strongly advocated not bringing in laws that did not command the respect of the majority of the public.
      8.30 pm
      In respect of the rights of individuals to carry out their private business free of state interference—a fundamental Liberal issue—there is a strong case for change. The key decision as to the age at which we each believe that people can be responsible for their own sexual behaviour is a personal one. My view is that the age is properly set at 16. As I said, it equates with the age at which one can leave school, pay tax and marry.
      Mr. Swayne: But not smoke.
      Mr. Allan: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. Of course one can smoke at 16. That is not to say that it is advisable to start having sexual relations at 16, but simply that one should not be prosecuted for it.
      There is often confusion that lowering the age at which it is legal somehow makes it compulsory to have sex at 16. That is clearly not the case. I would certainly not advise starting so early, any more than I would advise anyone to leave school or get married at 16. Exactly the same principles apply. However, I do not believe that the state should drag those who choose to do so through the courts and face them with a possible gaol sentence. We must remember that, when we set the age of consent, we are not making sex compulsory after that age; we are saying simply that the state will no longer prosecute people for doing so.
      We should set the line of responsibility clearly, and then do all we can to support individuals in taking that responsibility. The current confused age of consent is unhelpful in that respect. It is far more straightforward to tell teenagers that they are wholly responsible for their sexual behaviour at 16 and then help them to prepare for it, rather than saying that only pure heterosexuals have that responsibility.
      There is an intellectually coherent argument for having a general age of consent above 16 if one believes that 16-year-olds in general cannot handle the responsibility. It is much harder to argue that a 16-year-old male is sufficiently mature for sex with a partner of one sex, but not with a partner of the other. My experiences of getting to know the opposite sex raised complex issues that made it more rather than less difficult to handle a relationship.
      The state can do only so much to protect those over 16 from acts in which they choose to participate and to which they consent. Some of those acts they will regret,
      778
      and some may turn out to be important opportunities, just as we all make choices that turn out for better or for worse. However, the law should be reviewed for those over 16 but still of a young age.
      I agree with some of the concerns outlined by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), particularly in respect of those in care. I am not convinced that the amendments are worded correctly, and I have expressed to the Minister of State my concern about girls of 16 and 17 who are exploited by pimps. I hope that the Government will let us know their thinking in respect of protecting those over 16 who are still fairly young. I hope that the amendments will be taken seriously, and that we will get a substantive reply.
      The rights of 16-year-olds to define their sexuality bring responsibilities, and 16-year-olds still have a great deal to learn, whatever their sexuality. We should ensure that they are fully aware of those responsibilities, by providing a comprehensive programme of education before they reach the age of responsibility.
      I intend to vote for new clause 1 tonight to ensure that we have a legal code that is clear and rational. For the first time, 16-year-old citizens will be absolutely clear that they are responsible for their own sexual behaviour, without the prospect of the state seeking to prosecute them for certain types of behaviour that they find are right for them. We should do all we can to help young people to exercise their rights responsibly, but we should not seek to constrain them or to shoulder too much of their responsibility, especially when that involves threatening them with prison for acts that they find natural. I urge the House to support new clause 1.
      Mr. Stephen Twigg: It is a privilege for me to participate in tonight's debate. I pay tribute to hon. Members from all parties who spoke in support of new clause 1, particularly the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing). I do not know whether I will do her popularity among her hon. Friends any good by paying tribute to her very good and witty speech.
      I also pay tribute to Edwina Currie, the former Member for Derbyshire, South, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen). Above all, I pay tribute to the thousands of people who over the years have lobbied for this change. They have done so because they believe in human rights, equal opportunities and building a decent society. In particular, I reiterate the words of other hon. Members tonight in praising the work of Stonewall, which was launched 10 years ago and has done so much to bring about tonight's vote under the inspired leadership of its director, Angela Mason.
      In the debate in the House in 1994, perhaps the most powerful speech was made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who was then shadow Home Secretary. He said:
      "the issue … is not at what age we wish young people to have sex. It is whether the criminal law should discriminate between heterosexual and homosexual sex. It is therefore not an issue of age, but of equality. By supporting equality, no one is advocating or urging gay sex at 16 any more than those who would maintain the age of consent for heterosexual sex advocate that girls or boys of 16 should have sex. It is simply a question of whether there are grounds for discrimination.
      At present, the law discriminates".

      779
      Later in his speech, my right hon. Friend said:
      "it is wrong to treat a man as inferior because his sexuality is different.
      A society that has learned, over time, racial and sexual equality can surely come to terms with equality of sexuality. That is the moral case for change tonight. It is our chance to welcome people—I do not care whether there are 50,000, 500,000 or 5 million; it matters not a damn—into full membership of our society on equal terms. It is our chance to do good, and we should take it."—[Official Report, 21 February 1994; Vol.238, c.98-101.]
      The issue strikes at the heart of the sort of society that we want to build. Since last year's general election, the culture of the House has changed. We have a record number of women Members; we have more relatively young people in Parliament, and we now have six openly lesbian or gay Members. We have come a very long way in the four years since the issue was last debated.
      In 1984, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) stood up in Rugby and made a very brave speech in a politically different moral climate, in which he announced that he was gay, and became the first hon. Member openly to acknowledge his sexuality. I was 17 at the time, and I vividly recall the positive impact that his speech had on me. It challenged the conception that being gay is something to be ashamed of, to feel guilty about and to hide. Attitudes have changed a lot in the 13½ years since my right hon. Friend made that speech, and he has played no small part in bringing about that change.
      As the law stands, discrimination is entrenched in statute. Young gay men often face bullying, verbal abuse and physical attack, whether at school or in the local community. They often feel isolated and guilty about their sexuality. The law should protect the young and the vulnerable. Instead, the law criminalises for 16 and 17-year-old gay men behaviour that would be legal if they were heterosexual.
      There has been much lobbying on both sides of the debate. I have received letters from people with a sincerely held conviction that the change should not happen. I respect those opinions, and have responded respectfully. Unfortunately, like other hon. Members, I have also received some obnoxious and offensive lobbying, including one representation arguing against the change because young gay men are more likely to attempt or commit suicide. The argument, as I understand it, is that, if we discourage or criminalise gay sexuality, we shall reduce the rate of attempted or actual suicide.
      Surely the reality is the opposite. Some young gay men attempt to take their lives—successfully in some tragic cases—precisely because of the prejudice, the isolation, the bullying and the discrimination. The best way to tackle that is to foster an open, tolerant and pluralistic society. That is the message that the House will send if we pass the new clause.
      Mr. Julian Brazier: On that point, has the hon. Gentleman heard from the school of the science of acting? About 15 of its students and former students, all former homosexuals, testify how they left such feelings behind them when they chose to abandon homosexual practices. Many of them are now married.
      Mr. Twigg: I have heard about that. We should not make laws for such exceptional cases. Many other well respected medical and education bodies referred to by other hon. Members support the new clause.
      780
      I welcome the Home Office's decision to review sexual offences laws, and the Government's decision to review child protection procedures. I am sure that we all want laws that protect those who cannot protect themselves. The laws must be workable, and should not discriminate. That is why we have an age of consent, and why there is no support in the House for lowering it below 16. We have proposed an equal age of consent at 16.
      In the review of sexual offences legislation, I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consider two problems that will still exist even if the new clause is carried. First, the penalties for age of consent offences will continue to be different for gay couples from those for heterosexuals. Secondly, under-age gay men will continue to be criminalised, whereas under-age girls are not.
      The point of the age of consent, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) said, is to protect those under that age. The criminal should be the one over 16, not the one under 16. Making the younger partner a criminal may discourage some young people from reporting acts of abuse, as other hon. Members have said. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will address those points.
      This debate is about human rights. Prejudice and discrimination scar not only those who face it, but our entire society. Some have claimed in the past couple of days that the new clause will send out the wrong message. Far from it; the new clause will send out a positive, unequivocal and tolerant message. It is a positive message to young people that our inclusive society includes all young people. It is an unequivocal message to the school bully that they are the criminal, not the young people who are being bullied simply for being different. Above all, it is a message of tolerance.
      I am proud to have played my small part in supporting the new clause. I am proud of the cross-party support for it, including all three main party leaders. I am proud that tonight the House can put itself on the side of decency, openness and justice.
      8.45 pm
      Sir Norman Fowler: I shall briefly give my personal view.
      I hope that I shall be acquitted of the charge of being antagonistic to the homosexual community. As Secretary of State for Health, it fell to me to take the first steps in the battle against AIDS. That is not an exclusively homosexual issue, although some people continue wrongly to maintain that it is. However, it profoundly concerns the gay community. I had the opportunity to work with a range of gay organisations and gay people.
      Some say that those who surrounded the House of Commons in 1994, the last time we debated the issue, were typical of the gay community. That is not my experience. I endorse the praise that the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen) gave to organisations such as the National Aids Trust. We cannot judge all the spectators in Marseilles by the activities of the minority. I need no persuasion that the rights of gay people must be protected, and that that is a legitimate concern of the House.
      Equally, I am strongly in favour of family life. The best remembered phrase of my parliamentary career concerns the importance of the family and my intention to return to it. I shall continue to advocate the importance of the family, and my belief that it must continue to be at the centre of national life.

      781
      In 1994, I voted to reduce the age of consent from 21 to 18, because I believed that the law was out of date and that it was difficult to maintain, with the age of majority at 18, that people should be subjected to criminal prosecution for a further three years. I do not resile from that decision.
      However, I do not regard the case for a further reduction from 18 to 16 after such a short time as self-evident, as some have argued, even though I am sceptical about using the criminal law to support a particular attitude—I agree with the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth on that. We should recognise the limits of the criminal law in promoting values, and how the public will view our efforts to use it in that way.
      The public recognise the right of Parliament to pass laws to punish the guilty for clear crimes such as murder, robbery or burglary. They are more cautious about allowing us to intervene in the private lives of individuals. In the main, they believe that what consenting people do in private is usually a matter for them, and should not be a subject of criminal law and all that goes with it.
      When I was dealing with the AIDS issue, I received a great deal of advice. Religious leaders, newspaper leader writers and Members of Parliament all had their views. One of the most popular messages was that I should concentrate less on seeking to prevent the spread of AIDS by health education, and preach a more moral message. In particular, I was told to tell people—by which advisers usually meant gay people—to desist from the life that they were living.
      I tried to put the view that a loving relationship was the right way for someone to conduct their life. However, I never believed that that would be enough. My experience on the issue has convinced me that the public will listen to and take the best medical advice available—preferably from the chief medical officer, or even from the Secretary of State for Health. They will not necessarily accept advice so readily when politicians give the impression that they are trying to tell the public how to run their own personal lives. Frankly, given some of the situations that I have seen in my 28 years in the House of Commons, the public's scepticism on that is well justified—sometimes spectacularly well justified.
      None of this is an argument against seeking to set an example or trying to do good, but it is an argument against regarding the criminal law as a way of showing the general view of the behaviour of a group of people of whom at least some of the nation do not approve. That does not seem to me to be the right test as far as the criminal law is concerned.
      What is the proper matter for the criminal law? I would suggest that that comes when the actions of an individual or individuals violate the rights, lives and dignity of others. That was the issue that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw rightly addressed, and it is covered by his amendments. When the rights of young people are violated, that clearly must be a matter not only for the criminal law, but of deep concern for the House of Commons—a point to which my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) referred.
      782
      I understand the argument for a further reduction, but we are dealing with a criminal offence—an argument made strongly and with enormous eloquence and power by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing). We are dealing with prosecutions and everything that flows from that. No one wishes to retain a criminal sanction unless it is necessary.
      I am less persuaded by the argument of the British Medical Association on access to medical advice on, for example, AIDS—a point referred to by the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth, among others. We fought a much bigger battle in terms of drug users and clean needles. The fact that drug use was illegal did not prevent advice from being given. If, in the 1980s, we managed to address a message to every householder in the country on the danger of AIDS and the medical advice that was available, I do not think that it is beyond the wit of man to address a similar, but much more limited, message to young people generally.
      Ann Keen: In relation to AIDS advice and the right hon. Gentleman's reference to young people coming forward for advice on drug abuse, is he aware that the young men we are talking about fear so much that they will be branded as criminals that they do not come forward to anyone? A large number of people do not come forward because they fear prosecution, and prosecutions do take place—such as recently in Bolton, where a 17-year-old young man was prosecuted.
      Sir Norman Fowler: My point is that that matter can be dealt with in other ways. Drug use is illegal, but that has not prevented us from putting out messages to people who use drugs to tell them that medical advice—franldy, much more medical advice—is available to them. I understand the hon. Lady's argument, but it is not convincing.
      Nor do I find the argument on the standardisation of ages between heterosexual and homosexual sex to be remotely the end of the debate. It goes beyond that. The crucial argument surely is that the House must be convinced that, if it takes this action, a group of young people between the ages of 16 and 18 are not put at risk. That may be an inconvenient argument, and it may not fit in with people's views on standardisation. However, the protection of young people must remain a proper and paramount concern of the House of Commons.
      In that respect, I have great sympathy with the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw, which refer to both sexes—as they should. We are concerned with abuse by an older person who is in a position of authority, influence or trust. In many ways, the most important service that the hon. Gentleman has done is to refer the House to the report carried out by Sir William Utting and his colleagues for the Department of Health—not 30 or 40 years ago, but between 1996 and 1997.
      Bill Utting was the head of the social services inspectorate at the Department of Health and Social Security when I was Secretary of State, and I have the highest possible opinion of his judgment in these matters—I would not necessarily say that about everyone with whom I served in the DHSS. He is quite outstanding. In reference to the risk posed by abusers, he said:
      "Persistent sexual abusers are a scourge of childhood. Their numbers are difficult to estimate but each one who adopts a lifetime career will amass hundreds of victims. They inflict unspeakable

      783
      psychological and physical harm. Some of their victims will become abusers. Their success depends on their ability to ingratiate themselves with adults and children. They are largely but not exclusively men. They establish themselves as trusted friends, colleagues or employees. Exposure may be a matter of chance, often after many years of abuse."
      Mr. Ashton: Some weeks ago, I wrote to Sir William Utting and asked if he would support my amendments. He said that he would—he was very much in favour of them.
      Sir Norman Fowler: I read what the hon. Gentleman wrote about that in his letter to all colleagues. I am influenced—the House needs to judge whether I am over-influenced—by that, and by other cases. I shall give one example—the case of Roger Gleaves, the self-styled "Bishop of Medway", who was convicted in the 1970s of offences against young people. I raised his case in the House of Commons in 1975. Two months ago, in 1998, he was sentenced to 15 years for further offences against young people. In other words, he had been pursuing a career of abuse, year after year.
      No one can seriously doubt the problem that abusers pose to young people, and here we come up against one of the unsatisfactory features of the way in which we are proceeding tonight. We are debating an amendment to the Crime and Disorder Bill. Obviously, the amendment is within the scope of the Bill—otherwise, we would not be debating it. Whether it is in the spirit of the Bill is an entirely different matter. The way we are proceeding means that the measure is not being given the consideration it might otherwise have had.
      That was precisely the argument used by the Home Secretary a couple of hours ago against a new clause—with which he agreed in principle—tabled by the Opposition. Had new clause 1 been tabled at Second Reading, it could have been considered in Committee, and amendments could have been tabled to explore all the implications. Frankly, we are being presented with a proposal on a more or less take-it-or-leave-it basis, at the last stage of the consideration of the Bill in the House of Commons. That certainly allows the House to vote on the issue, but whether it is the best way in which to make law is another matter.
      It was a bit rich for the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth, who tabled new clause 1, to say on the BBC this morning that the trouble with the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw was that they were a bit rushed. I think that the whole operation has been rushed from beginning to end—
      Mr. Ben Bradshaw: Rushed?
      Sir Norman Fowler: Yes, rushed. The hon. Gentleman should consider the problems that would arise if we always legislated in this way. Those of us who have serious questions to ask find this way of doing business objectionable—if he does not understand that, he does not understand the process of Parliament, let alone what we are talking about.
      Mr. Shaun Woodward: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      9 pm
      Sir Norman Fowler: May I continue?
      On the basis of the evidence that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw has put before the House, I support the amendments that he has tabled. The previous Government established the Utting review because of the continuing revelations about widespread abuse of children in children's homes over the preceding 20 years. The Utting committee estimated that about 200,000 of the 12 million children under the age of 18 in England and Wales lived away from their parents' homes for at least 28 days. It set out areas of risk, such as children's homes, foster care, boarding schools and a range of others.
      On the basis of the Utting report, I believe that there is a strong case for improving the safeguards for children who live away from home. I have no illusions that that will be easy—we shall not cure the problem simply by passing the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw, but the House can at least attempt to prevent the problem from getting worse. However, my fear is that, if we were to pass new clause 1, we should present a grave risk for those children who live away from home.
      I shall certainly vote for the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw, but I should add that it is not only people in positions of authority who may be guilty of abuse. Many others may be guilty too, and they will not necessarily be caught by the definition in amendment (a). Such people are predominantly male; they pose an enormous threat to young people in the age group. I believe that those young people, about whom I am most concerned in this debate, need protection. We have heard a great deal about equality, and I respect what I have heard, but we have heard rather too little about how young people's rights will be protected.
      We voted to reduce the age of consent from 21 to 18 only four years ago—that was an important step. I am in no doubt about what the result of the vote this evening will be—I have no illusions whatever about that—but I hope that the House does not come to regret passing new clause 1. I believe that it poses such a risk that I shall vote to keep the age of consent at 18.
      Mr. Michael: I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen) and all those hon. Members who have contributed to the debate—we have seen the House at its best, dealing maturely and responsibly with an issue about which hon. Members have passionate views. It is perhaps slightly worrying that the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) has made two speeches in one day that have allowed us to hope that discussions between those on the Front Benches can be both constructive and robust.
      The package of new clauses and amendments boils down to four issues. First, is it the will of the House to equalise the age of consent? Secondly, how should we increase the protection for 16 and 17-year-olds from an abuse of their position by those who owe them a duty of care? The third proposal is to increase the age of consent if one of the parties is more than 21. The fourth proposal concerns a separate issue—the definition of "in private" for the purposes of homosexual activity.
      The first issue—the age of consent—is the main issue for tonight. We promised to give the House an opportunity to decide on a free vote whether we should have an equal age of consent at 16. The new clause has

      785
      been tabled by Back Benchers from both sides of the House but, by assisting with the drafting, we have ensured that it provides a real and genuine opportunity. That is why I have added my name to the related amendments Nos. 1 to 5. If the House supports new clause 1, it will be essential for the consequential amendments to be carried, and it will be the Government's policy to ensure that they are. By adding my name to the amendments, I intended to signal that purpose.
      This is a subject on which many hon. Members hold strong personal views, and it is right that Parliament should debate it freely. As we regard it as a matter of conscience for individual Members, the Government do not have a formal policy on the issue. However, I must make it clear that I will vote in favour of an equal age of consent, as I did in 1994. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has always made it abundantly clear that his personal view is that equalisation of the age of consent is a matter of basic fairness and equality. On 21 February 1994, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), who is now Leader of the Opposition, and the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) who leads the Liberal Democrats, voted for 16 as the age of consent following a debate in which the present Prime Minister, then the shadow Home Secretary, gave a seminal speech on the topic. I therefore live in hope of being in a crowded Aye Lobby when the Question is put.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg) quoted the Prime Minister in that debate, and I must underline one part of the quotation. My right hon. Friend said:
      "By supporting equality, no one is advocating or urging gay sex at 16 any more than those who would maintain the age of consent for heterosexual sex advocate that girls or boys of 16 should have sex. It is simply a question whether there are grounds for discrimination."—[Official Report, 21 February 1994; Vol. 238, c. 98.]
      The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield hesitated about whether 16 or 18 should be the age of consent, and said where he came down following his thoughts on the matter. I must point out to him that it is an issue not of age—it is easy to make an age argument one way or the other—but of equality. The law discriminates, and there is no doubt that that causes misery for some people. It is because of that unfairness and inequality that the homosexual age of consent is the subject of a case that is pending before the European Court of Human Rights.
      Before anyone suggests that this debate is about Europe taking decisions for us, let me remind the House that the argument is about a breach of a principle contained in a convention to which Governments of both parties have been committed and which was written largely by British lawyers. It is the strength of the Human Rights Bill that the principles of the convention will be written into our law and our citizens will be able to seek redress in our courts rather than having to go to Strasbourg. However, that is not the case at present, so the matter is before the European Court.
      The European Commission has already considered the case and found that the differential in the age of consent for homosexuals and heterosexuals breaches the convention right of privacy and the right not to be discriminated against in private life. The Government reached an agreement with the applicant that the case
      786
      would not be pursued pending parliamentary consideration of the issue. The tabling by Back Benchers of the new clause provides the opportunity for such consideration.
      Mr. Butterfill: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, for the act of buggery, the age of consent is the same for both men and women–18, at the moment—so that does not need to be equalised? I use the word "buggery" not in the pejorative sense that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) suggests but because it is the legal term incorporated in the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen).
      Mr. Michael: There are a number of complications in the law, to which I will turn in a few moments. It is best if we concentrate on the main point of principle. Advocates of an equal age of consent have made a case persuasively and with eloquence. Significantly, supporters come from a wide variety of parties, and the new clause was moved by a mother whose remarks showed both care for people and concern for principle. Principles frequently clash in this House, as do the interests of different groups. So, I invite all hon. Members to support new clause I because it is right and not because it is in the interests of one group.
      As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said before the election in a speech in the Grand Committee Room on 19 February 1997:
      "These are not issues for any sectional interest but for the whole of society. They touch on how we treat other people, what responsibility we show to others in return for the rights we all expect for ourselves. The test for any democracy is what freedom the majority allows to those with whom it may disagree, not merely to those with whom it agrees."
      The only argument for the discrimination inherent in the differential age of consent is to protect young people from predatory men. The overwhelming evidence is that sexuality is of people's nature: it is not something that is caught or that people are persuaded into.
      For those who are confused about their sexuality, there is no evidence that the criminal law helps them to solve their dilemmas. Often it simply drives them away from the information, advice and help that could enable them to make their own choices maturely. Predatory behaviour must be dealt with firmly and quickly. It is a scandal that we have failed to protect our young people from adults—mostly men, sometimes women. The Government have made massive progress in offering the genuine, effective protection that children and vulnerable adults have a right to expect. I am a member of the ministerial group, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, on action following the Utting report, to which the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield referred. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that Ministers are passionate about the issue and the need for progress.
      I hope that the House will get the principle right on new clause 1 and agree to an equal age of consent by a massive and conclusive majority. We need to consider the serious issues aired under the second set of amendments on abuse of trust, which were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton). New clause 8 and amendments Nos. 61 and 62, which deal with girls, are clearly intended to make up a comprehensive package on abuse of trust. The main debate today has focused on

      787
      treatment of homosexuals, but my hon. Friend rightly believes that we need to ensure effective protection for boys and girls at the vulnerable ages between 16 and 18.
      I have a good deal of sympathy with my hon. Friend's approach. Boys and girls are already free to marry at those ages, but they can be victims of the unscrupulous, and they may be persuaded or influenced to enter into relationships rather than doing so of their own free will. It is particularly important to protect those who are vulnerable, and those who are in care. I made it clear during the Committee stage of the Bill that the Government intend to provide that protection; there is no difference between us and my hon. Friend on that point. Even before he tabled his amendments, we had acknowledged the need for changes in the law. There are already safeguards in pre-employment checks and professional codes—such as the code that stops teachers entering into relationships with pupils—but they do not cover all cases, and some of them are not strong enough.
      Our priority is to protect the vulnerable and to reinforce the duty of professional care. We are looking carefully at what needs to be done, but we must get it right. I have discussed the issue with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Education and Employment and for Health, and we have made it a matter of priority. We have set up an interdepartmental working group to identify the additional safeguards needed to prevent those who are unsuitable to do so from working with children. That group will also identify the measures necessary to protect 16 and 17-year-olds who may be vulnerable to abuse by those in positions of trust.
      Mr. Gale: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Michael: Some areas of specific concern, such as residential schooling and care, will be considered with extreme care.
      Mr. Gale: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Michael: The work will be wide-ranging; will not be limited to one sector—
      Mr. Gale: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Michael: In a moment. I do hate giving way in the middle of a sentence.
      The work will be wide-ranging; will not be limited to one sector and will examine existing safeguards in the public, private and voluntary sectors and the need for new measures as part of an integrated approach. To answer the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate, let me say that we will consider the issues that he raised, such as the fairness of the law and its effectiveness.
      Mr. Gale: The Minister has told the House that he intends to support a clause that many of us feel will weaken the protection available to young people. He has also said that yet another working party is considering the protection of young men and women in institutional care. He has given no indication whether he will support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), which I most certainly support, and the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen) declined to give way on the subject when she opened the debate.
      788
      Will the Minister tell us why he is prepared to support one measure without simultaneously putting the other in place, as is his ministerial responsibility?
      Mr. Michael: I wish that the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) would listen to the debate instead of trying to interrupt in the middle of sentences. I have tried to make it clear that I believe that new clause 1 is right, and is not about the abuse of positions of trust. I am making it equally clear that serious issues were rightly raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw in his important speech. I am trying to respond to those points effectively.
      If, instead of trying to score debating points, the hon. Member for North Thanet looked at the way in which we have dealt with the needs of victims and vulnerable witnesses, he would find that the outstanding piece of work that we published a fortnight ago addressed those issues comprehensively. He should take that as the example of how we wish to deal with the issues, and should realise that the Government deserve more respect from him, rather than his unhelpful interventions.
      We expect the group about which I have spoken to make its final recommendations by the end of the year. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept my assurance that the Government consider the protection of the vulnerable an absolute priority. However, it is important to examine the whole area rather than proceed according to a piecemeal approach. There are human rights issues involved, and questions of definition and scope. We must look carefully before taking action. There are plenty of pieces of law that give the impression of tackling a problem but which fail to do so. There are draconian punishments for those whom we fail to catch; they are pointless in law. We need to do much more to protect and prevent.
      I cannot accept my hon. Friend's amendments, because they would create a new set of difficulties and anomalies. I refer not to my hon. Friend's intentions or to the broad sweep of his amendments, but to the way in which those amendments would work in practice. First, his amendments to new clause 1 would ensure that, if the abuse of trust was part of a homosexual relationship, not only the abuser but the victim would be committing a criminal offence. That cannot be right: it would increase the power of the abuser and make the abuse much less likely to be reported. It takes us back to the arguments that make the reduction in the age of consent something that is in the interests of young people.
      9.15 pm
      Secondly, the amendments would not apply in cases where an older woman takes advantage of a younger boy—such things do happen, as I am sure my hon. Friend would concede. Thirdly, the drafting is imprecise and creates other difficulties, which I would be happy to go through with my hon. Friend at greater length than the House would wish me to do here. If we are concerned about those vulnerable to undue influence from those with authority over them, this concern applies potentially as much to marriage as to sexual intercourse.
      The essence of the concern is that the consent is not wholly free of influence. For instance, should we make unlawful a marriage between a 16 or 17-year-old and a person in a position of authority, influence or trust? They are major issues, and we should not contemplate taking

      789
      [Mr. Michael]
      such steps at this late stage in the Bill's progress when there has been no opportunity fully to consider the implications. For instance, the amendments would make it unlawful for a 17-year-old girl to marry her boss. I am sure that that is not what is intended.
      I hope that I have made it clear that there are too many problems with my hon. Friend's amendments as they stand, and as they are technically drafted, for them to be accepted tonight. However, I respect both his intentions and his attempt to draft amendments in order to give the House a chance to act.
      Mr. Ashton: My hon. Friend is gabbling at breakneck speed, and I cannot keep up. I do not know why he is doing that. Why can he not take things much more slowly, so that we can understand what is happening?
      The amendments were drawn up at my request by the Clerk of the Committee examining the Crime and Disorder Bill, who is an experienced lawyer. I do not claim that the amendments or proposed new clause 8 are perfect, but they do not have the wide-ranging implications that my hon. Friend claims.
      The Minister—and the Secretary of State before him—said that the Crime and Disorder Bill would be back before the House by the end of July and would become law. The Minister now says that the working party will keep trundling along and may produce a report at the end of the year. Perhaps we will debate that and perhaps there will be another Bill.
      I have been in the House a long time and have heard Governments say that they will act, only for things to remain in limbo. With respect, the Minister has not replied to my amendments regarding restraint on abuse—although he virtually said that the existing situation is not working. Can we have a date? Will there be a new Bill? When will it be presented? Can we have—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not make a second speech.
      Mr. Michael: I think I made it clear—if I did so too quickly, I apologise to my hon. Friend—that I accept the purposes behind his amendments. However, I hope that I have outlined also the damaging complications in this very complicated piece of interrelated legislation. I also made it clear that it is important to have legislation that works. For instance, the Bill deals with issues such as anti-social behaviour and sex offender orders. We spent much time on those issues in opposition so that we could bring before the House considered ways of dealing with them. It should be recognised that, as a result of our putting in that time, and moving quickly as soon as the opportunity arose, the Bill as a whole is a most reforming piece of criminal justice legislation, tackling youth justice and a variety of issues.
      Similarly, we have dealt with the needs of victims and vulnerable witnesses. The House has debated that issue frequently over many years. We have got on with the job since coming to power.
      Mr. Ashton: Cannot the Lords achieve the same aim in an amendment that could come back to this House?
      Mr. Michael: No, I do not believe that there is time to do that properly without placing the whole Bill at risk, including the reform of youth justice, protection for
      790
      people through dealing with anti-social behaviour and dealing with some aspects of predatory behaviour through the sex offenders order. I am sure that my hon. Friend does not want to slow down the process of getting those matters into law.
      Mr. Bermingham: No one is trying to sabotage the Bill. We are merely seeking to protect a small group of people from a small group of predators. Is it beyond the wit of the Minister and the Home Office to take that on board?
      Mr. Michael: No, of course it is not. That is why we are doing so much on the issue. That is why, for instance, we put sex offender orders in the legislation. That is an aspect of protecting children against the activities of predatory adults.
      Sir Patrick Cormack: Surely this matter could be dealt with in the House of Lords, where there is enough legal expertise for a sensible amendment to emerge and come back to this place.
      Mr. Michael: I understand why the hon. Gentleman would wish that. Once he has considered what I have said about the complex effect of the amendments—particularly the fact that they would introduce a new element of inequality to a new clause that seeks to end inequality—I hope that he will accept that they would not achieve what he wants to achieve.
      Mr. Gerald Howarth rose—
      Mr. Michael: These issues need to be thought through with great care before we embark on legislation.
      Mr. Howarth: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Michael: I shall give way for the last time. Many hon. Members wish to speak.
      Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, because it was hellish difficult to get in between two sentences.
      If he accepts the logic of the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), which I also signed, he will find that they provide some protection in respect of hon. Members' concerns. If he feels that, although inadequate in their present form, they should be enacted in an adequate form but that he cannot do that now, he should call on the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen) to withdraw the motion.
      Mr. Michael: No, because it is the drafting and tabling that relate the two issues. I do not believe that new clause 1 will have the result that the hon. Gentleman thinks it will. It deals with a separate point, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw is right to say that 16 and 17-year-old boys and girls—he is right to place that joint emphasis—need protection from predatory adults. The two issues are brought together in the debate by the juxtaposition of the amendments. I see them as two separate issues, but I have sought to respond to the debate in respect of both.
      Mr. Donald Anderson: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Michael: Many hon. Members wish to speak. I said that I had given way for the last time. It is better to get it right than to get it wrong quickly and give the impression of having done something by accepting amendments that would not achieve the ends which my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw says he seeks. He raised important issues. I hope that he, and those who agree with him, will accept our assurances about our intention to deal with the issues and will not press the amendment.
      Mr. Anderson: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Michael: I have said already that the intervention that I accepted from the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) would be the last one. If I were to take further interventions I would be eating into the time of Back-Bench Members who wish to take part in the debate.
      I hope that I have said enough, without delaying the House further, to show why the amendment to increase the age of consent where one of the parties is over 21 is wrong and would not succeed in its purpose.
      I turn to new clause 4 and the related amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) and others. New clause 4 and the associated amendments seek to remove one of the two qualifications that now exist to the proposition that consensual homosexual activity involving parties of the age of consent is lawful if done in private. I am sympathetic to the intention behind the new clause and amendments and to the strong feeling on the part of many people that the law in this area is discriminatory. I understand the argument that it is wrong to penalise homosexual activity that takes place between consenting parties of the age of consent in the privacy of the home just because more than two people are present.
      It is important, however, that Parliament should recognise that there are differing views and that there are likely to remain concerns about sexual activity in public places, and not only gay activity. There are different approaches to the issue. In the past, Stonewall put forward a set of proposals which would involve repealing the offences of buggery and gross indecency and amending the Public Order Act 1986 to cover harassment, alarm or distress caused, among other things, by indecent behaviour. The Criminal Law Revision Committee, which considered the issue in 1984, came up with different proposals which would involve creating a new offence. That illustrates the need to consider such issues in the round.
      There are inequalities, and those inequalities need to be addressed. However, particularly in an area as complex as sexual offences legislation, a problem can rarely be solved by one simple amendment. We need to examine the consequences of making changes and consider whether, by dealing with one problem, we may not be creating others.
      I refer again to the fact that I recently announced our intention to review the law relating to sexual offences more generally. There are many anomalies in the existing legislation, which in many respects reflects attitudes and views that are no longer accepted in modern society. The review of this area of legislation is long overdue, but matters are not helped by piecemeal reform such as that proposed by the amendment. There are also technical defects in the amendment.
      792
      My response is not intended to deny the importance of the House dealing with these issues but to say that the time is not right. There will be unfinished business after tonight's debate. In an earlier debate, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary explained the urgency of seeing the Bill through all its stages as soon as possible. It contains many proposals that will affect directly the lives of all our constituents who are plagued by crime and disorder in local communities.
      The protection of children and vulnerable adults will be at the forefront of the Government's proposals. There will be areas of the law that need review following the decision of principle, but let tonight's decision be a clear and simple one—to agree an equal age of consent.
      Several hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is now less than an hour left for the debate to run, so short speeches from hon. Members on both sides of the House will be appreciated.
      Mr. Crispin Blunt: It is clear that there is a majority in the House to equalise the age of consent at 16. I agree with the view that, even if one disapproves of homosexual practice, we should ideally not be using the criminal law to make a judgment on it. I subscribe to the liberal position that people should be free to behave as they wish, as long as that does not impact on the freedom of others.
      However, it is the duty of the House to have regard to the consequences of the laws we make. It is also our duty to protect the interests of those whose judgment has not fully matured. Even from a liberal perspective—here I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack)—we hold the interests of children in trust in the House.
      I have considered the issue carefully in the light of my instincts and beliefs. I do not believe that the House can pass without qualification the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen).
      Every responsible body that has considered the issue has acknowledged the need to protect children. I hope that the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth will pay attention as I quote the 1957 Wolfenden report, because she gave a totally different interpretation to it. The report states:
      "While there are some grounds for fixing the age as low as 16, it is obvious that however 'mature' a boy of that age may be as regards physical development or psycho-sexual make-up, and whatever analogies may be drawn from the law relating to offences against young girls, a boy is incapable, at the age of 16, of forming a mature judgment about actions of a kind which might have the effect of setting him apart from the rest of society."
      The Wolfenden report concluded that 21 was the right age,
      "because to fix it at 18 would lay them open to attentions and pressures of an undesirable kind from which the adoption of the later age would help to protect them, and from which they ought, in view of their special vulnerability, to be protected."
      Mr. Woodward: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      9.30 pm
      Mr. Blunt: If my hon. Friend will wait, I shall address the point that I believe he is about to make.
      Society has clearly changed in the past 40 years, but the consideration of protecting vulnerable individuals remains valid. I believe that it is a legitimate judgment to believe that 18 to 21-year-olds are more mature than they were in 1957 and that they are wiser in the ways of the world, having enjoyed the benefits of television and the information age and of more liberal attitudes in society generally. That is why, had I been a Member of Parliament in 1994, I would have supported changing the age of homosexual consent to 18. However, 16 and 17-year-olds still need special consideration.
      In 1979, the Home Office policy advisory committee's working party had a minority view that supported the reduction to 16, but with the compromise that a young man of 16 or 17 should be protected by the criminal law from the advances of a man in authority over him. I believe that it is self-evident that an adult over the age of 21 has an authority over 16 and 17-year-olds.
      In 1985, the Howard League for Penal Reform took as its base assumption that the individual should be free to regulate his or her sexual conduct in private, provided there is protection for the young or immature from exploitation or undue pressure. It recommended the introduction of a whole new system, which would have ensured legal protection from sexual exploitation for everyone under the age of 18, by creating offences of unlawful indecency and unlawful sexual contact with children under the age of 14, or with young persons under the age of 18 if the age gap between the participants was more than two years.
      It is the issue of protecting minors from exploitation by adults that is at the heart of our debate tonight. The principle of an equal age of consent, qualified by the protection of the young from adults, is already enacted in law in respect of sex between adults and children in five European Union countries. Is the House going to pass the new clause without regard for the consequences?
      Mr. Woodward: Is my hon. Friend aware that the NSPCC, Childline and many other agencies have addressed the issue of child protection? The NSPCC's movement on that issue in the past few years is crucial. It considers it absolutely vital that, if we are effectively to protect children, we need an equal age of consent.
      Mr. Blunt: I respect my hon. Friend's point of view and that of the NSPCC, and I shall go on to explain why I support an equal age of consent while also supporting the protection of young boys, aged 16 and 17, from adults over the age of 21. That is the aim of the amendments tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait). I hope that, if we have the chance to vote on them, they will commend themselves to the House.
      The Utting report, cited by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), combined with accounts from any police vice squad in the country, the experience of the sex industry in Holland and the changes to the gay sex industry here since we changed the law in 1994, show graphically what will happen if the House passes the new clause unchanged.
      794
      I support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw. It deals with the abuse of trust, and covers both boys and girls. It meets any conceivable objections to differences between homosexuality and heterosexuality. It is, however, both limited and specific. It is self-evidently common sense, and it should command the support of everyone in the House.
      The amendments in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham would go further. They would prevent the exploitation of boys of 16 and 17 by men over the age of 21. This is not some new or unique principle. Exactly the same sort of law exists in Austria, where the age of consent is 14 and where it is illegal for a male over the age of 19 to commit homosexual acts with a male between the ages of 14 and 18. I accept that our amendments discriminate, just as Austrian law does, between homosexual and heterosexual practice. We are dealing with different forms of behaviour; I believe it right that our law should discriminate in that limited way between homosexual and heterosexual practice.
      Issues to do with marriage, the upbringing of children, and the lack of psychological and sexual equivalence between boys and girls aged 16 and 17, have led me to conclude that my amendments should apply only to homosexual relationships. I concede that it is arguable that they could apply equally to the exploitation of young girls by older men. However, the everyday experience of adolescents, combined with scientific observations, makes it clear that boys of this age are self-evidently less mature, sexually and in judgment, than their female counterparts. While I accept that, in law, we should tolerate people's choices to follow a homosexual life style and practice, I maintain that those are not equivalent to heterosexuality—nor should we pretend that they are.
      Mr. Bradshaw: The hon. Gentleman perpetuates the myth that being gay is a life style choice. It is no more a life style choice than is his sexual orientation.
      Mr. Blunt: I am afraid that I cannot accept that. In our culture, the choice of a homosexual orientation tends to become the dominating influence on a person's life: it defines homosexuals in a way that heterosexuality does not. I am not condemning that choice; I believe that it should be tolerated. I do not, however, believe the two choices to be the same.
      It is also clear that there is a much greater strand of homosexuality than of heterosexuality which depends for its gratification on the exploitation of youth. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame!"] I am sorry if Labour Members do not like the truth, but I do not intend to run away from the difficult issues.
      Ann Keen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Blunt: The hon. Lady did not give way to me.
      My conclusion is that we have a duty to protect boys of 16 and 17 from exploitation by men of 21 and over. To those who say that my amendment will be struck down by the European Court of Human Rights, I would answer: that has not happened to Austria. My amendments also comply with equalising the age of consent. The ECHR will have to draw the line somewhere—unless we go for absolute equivalence, an idea which I reject.
      This discrimination is defensible and, at the very least, should be tested. It properly belongs, as the Government have acknowledged, in the margin of appreciation,

      795
      recognised by the European Court of Human Rights, allowed to democratic states to legislate in controversial areas. That is why I commend my amendment to the House and ask hon. Members to support it, if it is put to the vote. If it is not accepted, I should not want to be associated with the consequences of accepting new clause 1.
      I urge hon. Members to consider the consequences of their actions before they vote. If, like me, they consider that there is a case for homosexuality to be tolerated as equally as possible, but balanced by regard for the consequences, they will support my amendment.
      Mr. Stuart Bell: Given the lateness of the hour, I shall not take interventions in the next few minutes so that other hon. Members can speak in the debate.
      The views that I put to the House shall be put as a Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church of England and putting forward its views on the matter. I should not want it to be thought, however, that I do not entirely subscribe to those views.
      Mr. Bradshaw: Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?
      Mr. Bell: I said clearly that I would not give way.
      The Archbishop of Canterbury has made it clear that he does not support further lowering of the age of consent for homosexual practice. He believes that that would send a signal that homosexual practice is on a par with, and equal to, heterosexual relationships, a point which the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) made earlier. The archbishop has made it plain that he recognises that there are valid arguments on both sides, but his view remains that it would not be desirable to send out such a signal.
      In a statement this weekend, the House of Bishops made it plain that all who have leadership responsibility in our society, in Church and state, have a particular duty to support young people in their personal development, to protect them from harm and exploitation, and to offer them a vision of what is good. Legislation affecting sexual relationships should therefore offer protection, set an example of what is good, and be rooted in sound moral values.
      There is particular need in our culture to support young people. Pressures are at work to legitimise any and every life style, irrespective of any difference of value and quality between them. The Church believes that those pressures should be resisted. The House of Bishops recognises the complexity of the issues facing legislators and the House, but it is concerned that the proposal to lower to 16 the age of consent for homosexual relationships may send wrong messages to young people and to our society as a whole. It is particularly important for it to be understood that actions may be legal without being morally right or socially desirable. I shall refer briefly to that point later.
      Although the House of Bishops accepts that there is a debate within in it about the right way forward on this issue—as, indeed, there is in the wider Church—it believes that there is a widespread desire that a broader agenda of moral vision should provide the context for the debate and for the consideration of other social issues. We all need to work for greater stability and flourishing in our personal lives, the building of family life and the deepening of community life.
      796
      For those reasons, the majority of the House of Bishops opposes the new clause to lower the age of consent for homosexual relationships. If something is morally wrong, the fact that the House votes to make it legally right does not make it anything other than morally wrong. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) referred to Church and state, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), who is not in the Chamber, referred to the Utting report. Over the past 30 years, the state has withdrawn from issues of morality.
      Like the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) and other hon. Members, I voted four years ago for the age of consent to be reduced from 21 to 18. Hon. Members are being asked further to reduce the age of consent to 16. It is my view that soon we shall be asked to vote for a reduction to 14—a point which was touched on by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), among others. The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) did not want marches by organisations such as OutRage! In Paris yesterday, 20,000 people marched for civil marriage for homosexual couples and for the legal right to adopt children. This is a further undermining of family life, which has been and will continue to be the basis of our society for years to come.
      There must be a line in the moral sand. It is the view of the House of Bishops, so clearly stated, that its position is a reflection of a modern, confident Church which is prepared now to state clearly where it stands on morality and to invite the state to join it in a partnership. That can begin tonight by Members opposing the new clause and by marrying Church and state to follow a different route—one that will help younger generations and those who are still children.
      9.45 pm
      Dr. Evan Harris: I want to speak tonight from the perspective of human rights. New clause 1, to which I put my name, and new clause 4 are supported by Members from all political parties. It is important to make clear notes in these debates and not to hold them upside down. I am reminded of what happened in the 1994 debate in the other place, when an elderly bishop said that he did not realise they were talking about 18; he thought it was 81—and even he recognised that that could not be fair.
      There is a danger not only of upside-down reading, but of upside-down thinking. The basic starting point in addressing the issue is that there should be equality in law. There need to be overwhelming reasons to move away from equality and non-discrimination.
      The sponsors and supporters of new clause 1 are not asking those who oppose it to approve of homosexual acts; they are not even asking them to accept them. All they are asking, as a minimum, is that they are not criminalised and that we do not legislate against the expression of love between people who have reached a fixed sexuality in their lives. It is for that reason that, in determining my vote, I cannot accept the views of the Archbishop of Canterbury or those bishops—and they are split on this issue—who do not want the House to accept new clause 1.
      Mr. Leigh: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Dr. Harris: I will do so later in my speech. Indeed, I would prefer to give way on a point about new clause 4,

      797
      on which there has been little debate. I am responding to points made by hon. Members, who have not given way, on new clause 1.
      We do not yet live in a theocracy, so we are not bound to take note of a majority view in the House of Bishops, especially when the bishop charged by the Synod with dealing with this matter and tackling the issue of homosexuality for the Church itself, Bishop Harries of Oxford, favours a reduction in the age of consent to 16—for the reasons that we have heard tonight from the supporters of new clause 1.
      The Archbishop of Canterbury and other bishops are entitled to their view. The proposers of the new clause do not ask them to drop their view based on the Bible. Nor does the fact that adultery is not criminal in this country mean that those who agree with that feel that those of a religious persuasion should drop their prima facie objection to it. Many of us would be concerned about that. The question is whether the criminal code should legislate against these matters, and I believe that it should not.
      On the basic premise of moving towards equality and non-discrimination in other matters, I want to speak briefly about medical issues, which have been raised in the debate. I speak as a member of the British Medical Association council and the proposer of a motion at a meeting last year, when it unanimously restated its belief in equality in the age of consent at 16—and in a whole range of other equality issues. The council is joined in that belief by bodies such as the Health Education Council, the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Psychiatrists and other royal colleges. Each established medical body believes, on the review of evidence, that there is no medical reason to oppose an equalisation in the age of consent at 16.
      I regret that I must disagree with the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing), who spoke so powerfully, but did say that there were medical divisions. On the review of all the evidence, the established medical bodies have come down firmly in favour of equalisation. It is now medically accepted that homosexuality is fixed at an early age and not at an age greater than 16. People such as the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) state that that is not the case, but stating that does not make it so. Those who believe that the earth is flat do not make it so by declaring that it is flat.
      Mr. Blunt rose—
      Mr. Brazier rose—
      Dr. Harris: I shall not give way on this point, because I wish to make progress.
      The same applies to the journalist in The Daily Telegraph, who, in a flat-earth way, makes certain medical statements as if they were fact when they are not accepted by medical opinion. I was outed in The Daily Telegraph as a doctor who believes in equality, and outed as a liberal, to which I confess without any shame. I am delighted that I have now been named in The Daily Telegraph in a capacity other than that of bridge player.
      The other medical question is whether sexuality can be changed by participation in sexual activity. Medical authorities do not accept that, among the multifarious
      798
      factors, sexual practice, especially in teenage life, has any effect on sexuality. European countries that have a lower age of consent do not have a higher rate of homosexuality. The medical and psychological evidence supports my case.
      The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack)—he could be described as the hon. Member for the 19th century—referred to the problem of predation. As has been said, that problem affects young women and girls as much as, if not more than, it affects young boys. There is no evidence to suggest that a greater proportion of those involved in paedophilia are homosexual. The vast majority of paedophile criminals are heterosexuals who exploit young boys as well as young girls.
      The issue of AIDS has been raised, particularly by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire.
      Mr. Brazier: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Dr. Harris: No, not on this point, because I want to make progress.
      The Terrence Higgins Trust did a remarkable amount to reduce the incidence of HIV transmission. Although the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), who is no longer present, did well in getting across to the wider population the message about the dangers of HIV infection, the Conservative Government can be criticised for not sending enough targeted messages about the dangers affecting homosexuals of all ages. It is not through homosexual acts, but through unsafe sexual practice with someone who is infected, that the virus is transmitted. We must get that message across.
      I have worked as a doctor in the field of HIV; people with AIDS have died in my arms. I do not want a return to the years when people were not able to obtain critical information about sexual health because, in seeking such information, they ran the risk of being criminalised. Young people have a right to such information.
      From a medical perspective, I entirely share the views of the Minister of State on the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton). The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Reigate are incompetent. Amendments to criminalise homosexual behaviour between people over 21 and those below the age of 18 would make a legal relationship between a 17-year-old and a 20-year-old suddenly illegal and criminal on the date of the birthday of the older person in the relationship. It would be some birthday present to criminalise a previously non-criminal relationship. Those amendments must be opposed by the majority of hon. Members, who, I believe, want to equalise the age of consent at 16.
      I deal now with the subject of new clause 4, which has cross-party support. It has not been advertised widely in advance of this debate. That was deliberate on the part of its proposers, in order to avoid detracting from the main message that should emerge from this debate, which is the equalisation of the age of consent. Although it has been advocated quietly, however, it is a critical new clause.
      New clause 4 would delete a gross violation of privacy and a gross violation of the right to freedom from discrimination. It seeks to delete the provision in the Sexual Offences Act 1967 that means that consenting homosexual acts by adults in private can never be private,

      799
      no matter how many doors they are locked behind, when more than two people are present—not more than two people participating, but more than two people present. I think that many Conservative Members, and not only those who take a libertarian view in supporting this, believe that an Englishman's house is his castle.
      Mr. Leigh: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Dr. Harris: I will give way in a moment.
      Certainly, the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark) will take that remark literally. I will not press this too much further, but the right hon. Gentleman would not like the Secretary of State coming into his bedroom to see what he was up to as a consenting adult in private; and I am sure that the Secretary of State would not want to be there. This is a serious matter that strikes at the heart of the rights of consenting adults in private to do what they wish without the state intervening.
      Mr. Leigh: At times, this debate has seemed unreal, not least because of the 13 speeches given, only three have opposed the new clause. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that people outside will be astonished by what he is saying? Every opinion poll—NOP, the Wellings survey—shows that 73 per cent. of the nation is opposed to new clause 1 on good moral and religious grounds, yet the hon. Gentleman, who is a doctor, is supporting gay sex by adults—not only by consenting adults in private, but by groups. Does he appreciate how out of touch he is with the real world?
      Dr. Harris: If it is asked whether there should be equalisation of the age of consent, opinion polls show a majority in favour. The House is above making legislation according to selective opinion polls. If we operated on that basis, we should not have seen the huge majority, rightly, against the reintroduction of capital punishment, among other things. We should not pander to prejudice, however inadvertently it is held by the population. This matter is a litmus test for the liberality of Government, political parties and individual Members, in which to prove that they will not kow-tow to apparent or real prejudice in society.
      The provision that new clause 4 seeks to delete was introduced in 1965 into the Bill that was later adopted by Leo Abse. It was passed in the other place by a group of homophobic peers—that is clear from a reading of the record. Many Labour Members have as their hero Hugh Gaitskell, but on this issue, the real heroine was Baroness Gaitskell, who tried to make it clear to the peers who were prejudiced that the very acts referred to earlier were legal if performed by heterosexuals, were not punishable on a felony and by imprisonment, and there was no reason why they should be for consenting adults of any sexuality in private.
      The major problem with this debate is that it is impossible—from some of the sedentary comments made by some Conservative Members, one can see why—for Governments to tackle the issue raised by new clause 4. Unlike the issues related to new clause 1, the subject of new clause 4 has not been debated in this House since 1967. The provision added by the peers in 1967—the extra provision covering privacy—was specifically not recommended by the Wolfenden report in 1956. This
      800
      House, to its shame, has never revisited it since. Therefore, one cannot say that new clause 4 is being rushed.
      There are other examples of discrimination which I shall not go into, but of which I know the Minister of State and the Government are aware. However, I should like to explain why we, the proposers of new clause 4, want more progress made than the Minister outlined.
      We should like Ministers to recognise—which, to the Government's credit, I think that they have already partly done—that we are debating a matter neither of anomalies nor of some strange historical quirks, but of outright discrimination, of the type that the Labour manifesto promised to abolish. Labour pledged to end
      "unjustified discrimination wherever it occurs",
      even in matters that are difficult to debate, such as sexual offences law.
      We should also like the Government to reaffirm that those discrimination issues do not touch upon child protection issues. We are debating issues concerning consenting adults acting in private, and the waters should not be muddied by raising other issues. We should therefore be grateful if the Minister would make a separate statement on reviewing the laws dealing with discrimination and ensure the right to equality for homosexuals and heterosexuals. The statement should be separate from a discussion of paedophilia and protection of the young—matters which many hon. Members of all parties are concerned about.
      Dr. Julian Lewis: As a doctor, and therefore an expert in medical matters, will the hon. Gentleman answer a simple question? Is it or is it not the case that engaging in anal sex increases the chance of catching AIDS?
      10 pm
      Dr. Harris: The hon. Gentleman needs to know that engaging in any sex—compared to abstinence—increases the risk of catching various diseases. We do not criminalise, for example—although the analogy is not very strong—dangerous sports. Neither, for the reason that he gave, should we criminalise consenting acts in private by people capable of giving consent. It is not the case that homosexual acts are inherently dangerous—which is why not one person in the ruling council of the British Medical Association or even one recognised medical or nursing establishment would agree with the hon. Gentleman's views, which cannot be based on a review of medical evidence. I feel that his views are based on an exploration of his own prejudice.
      I urge Ministers to acknowledge that current legislation is discriminatory and not merely anomalous; to espouse the principle that the state should not seek to criminalise or intervene in consenting acts in private by adults and not involving injury; to clarify that consenting homosexual activities above the age of consent should not be associated directly in law with paedophile offences, and that there is no reason to do so; and, finally, to agree to a full review of discriminatory sexual offences, with a clear view to ending such discrimination during this Parliament.
      I invite the Minister to give those undertakings to hon. Members from both sides of the House—including Conservative Members—who support new clause 4.
      Mr. Gordon Marsden: New clause 1 is about equality and social justice, not about privileges, special treatment, positive discrimination or removing safeguards for the vulnerable. The new clause is about ensuring our fellow citizens' equality before the law. The litmus test of a civilised and pluralist society is how it treat its minorities. We all belong to a minority of one sort or another.
      The new clause is also not about whether hon. Members share or approve of the outlook of a specific minority. It is about whether, in a civilised society at the end of the 20th century, hon. Members should deny equality. Many hon. Members—not least Conservative Members—are disciples of J. S. Mill, who believed in keeping the state out of the private sphere of people's lives. Elizabeth I would not make windows into men's souls, yet Conservative Members often seem very unwilling not to make windows into the bedroom.
      Like Conservative Members, current law makes such windows. What has been the result of maintaining a discriminatory age of consent? Today, one national newspaper said that it was
      "three decades of fear, shame and damage generated by an unequal law."
      The unequal law isolates some teenagers. It also encourages intolerance among and between teenagers.
      A national survey of homophobia in schools consulted 1,000 head teachers, 80 per cent. of whom reported verbal bullying. More than 25 per cent. reported assaults on pupils who were believed to be gay or bisexual. Surveys of gay teenagers confirm the same figures, and, as hon. Members have heard tonight, a significant proportion of them are pressured almost to suicide.
      A discriminatory age of consent frets and fetters those who would give support to young people. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen) and others have referred to the views of Barnardos, Save the Children and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. Above all, a discriminatory age of consent compounds the sense of isolation that affects many gay teenagers. Some Opposition Members may think that it is all about life style choices and metropolitan glitz, but it is not easy being a gay teenager in a small northern town, in the valleys or in the shires.
      I remember a summer evening in France a number of years ago when I was 17 and a school friend told me and those of us who had gone on holiday together that he was gay, nervously waiting to see what the reaction would be. Thank God it was positive and supportive. I could not speak tonight without discharging a debt to his courage on that occasion. Today 16 and 17-year-olds up and down the country are wrestling with the same fears and decisions. We could assist them in coming to terms with and making their decisions. We should not load them down with premature criminality.
      To maintain an unequal age of consent sends a message of discrimination that, however conscientious, civic-minded and productive members of society gay people are, they must continue to accept second-class status. It is a message that inevitably devalues their self-worth and humanity. Societies that are content to afford that status to minority groups consistently run the risk that, when turmoil or upheaval affects them, those discriminated against become the scapegoats.
      802
      Some have tried to suggest that maintaining a discriminatory age of consent is what the public want. I remind hon. Members that at various times the status quo wanted to keep slaves, public hangings and bear baiting, and to treat women as chattels and deny them an independent role in society. Society is what it is today because, at diverse times and in diverse places, the House has had the courage to move on.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) said, in the past few days we have had the rather vague statement from some bishops about sending out wrong messages.
      Mr. Bradshaw: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Marsden: I am sorry, but I do not have enough time.
      The House is here to enact legislation for all faiths and for none. If we are talking about our Christian inheritance and belief, as some have done this evening, let me say that I share it, however imperfectly, as do many who support this change. Unfortunately, I do not have the marvellous hotline to the Almighty that some hon. Members have in respect of man-made law. I recall, however, a few phrases in the Bible, such as:
      "Judge not, that ye be not judged";
      and:
      "In my Father's house are many mansions".
      That is why, gently, I suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough goes to the Primate of All England and that, when the Primate of All England goes into his private chapel in the palace over the river, he looks into his own heart and asks himself about the wrong messages that have been sent out to generations of young people struggling with their faith and sexuality by attitudes within the Church that have shut them out like the Samaritans of old.
      Hon. Members must also look into their hearts and think about the message that they will send after tonight's vote to those who serve them in this place who are gay, lesbian or bisexual, to those among their constituents who come to them for help, to those among their friends, political supporters and associates, to their families and to those who are known and unknown, visible and invisible in their sexual orientation. Will they say, "Oh, we are sorry, but we have decided that we have to continue to make you feel just that little bit smaller, just that little bit more fearful, just that little bit more excluded"?
      If there are people here willing to do that, so be it, but let them not delude themselves that they do not do it to real people of flesh and blood. Shakespeare said it all in "The Merchant of Venice":
      "Hath not a Jew eyes? hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? … If you prick us, do we not bleed? if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison us. do we not die?"
      I came here not to out the bard, but to praise him. I should like hon. Members to reflect on the wise words of Mr. Shakespeare and on the words of E. M. Forster, who said that we should "only connect". I ask hon. Members to reflect and to only connect.
      When I wrote a few words about my sexuality recently in my local paper, among the correspondence that I received was a letter from a support group for parents of

      803
      lesbian, gay and bisexual children. Like Shakespeare, they put the issue more eloquently than I could:
      "We are all born in the same way and go when the time is right. It is what we can do in between with the very short time we have that matters most. Let us do this by treating all people as equal—and this means starting with our daughters and sons, doesn't it?"
      I urge the adoption of the new clause.
      Sir Peter Lloyd: The hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) spoke with considerable feeling. We can all sympathise with individuals in the circumstances he described.
      I congratulate the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen) on tabling the new clause. I did not agree with everything she said, but I wholly agreed with the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton). I hope that he will press his amendments and that the House will adopt them. The Minister may be right to say that the wording of the amendments is not correct, but that can be considered at greater leisure in another place.
      The amendments deal with a far narrower issue than will the review the Minister says he wants to set up. It is not beyond the powers of their Lordships to judge whether they give effect to what the hon. Member for Bassetlaw and those who support him want. Let the Lords decide. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
      Some of my hon. Friends cheer me slightly too early. In 1994 I voted for 16 and I intend to do the same this evening. That is not because I believe that there is a particular age for male or female, heterosexual or homosexual—
      Mr. Leigh: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I know that you and Mr. Deputy Speaker have a difficult task organising debates, but it must be placed on the record that there have been 15 speeches, and only two or three have given the clear case against gay sex at 16.
      Madam Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman or any other hon. Member has a complaint, the Order Paper is available. They should put an early-day motion on the Order Paper criticising me for my selection. I shall see that it is debated without delay.
      Sir Peter Lloyd: I hope that I can finish my speech first.
      Whatever age is selected, it will be too low for some young people and too high for others. There must be clarity in the law, and we have to settle on the age or ages that seem to provide maximum protection with the minimum harmful side effects.
      I do not accept that, simply because 16 is the age of consent for heterosexual relationships, it must be the same for homosexual activity, but the distinguishing features are not so great as many of those who oppose the new clause think them to be. Teenage girls become pregnant, with devastating effects on their lives. That would argue a higher age of consent for girls, but, whatever the logic, raising it would surely not reduce their sexual activity at all. Indeed, it would only bring the law into contempt and make it harder for young girls, to obtain advice and guidance.
      Similarly, homosexual activity carries considerable health risks, which again suggests a higher age than 16, but—again—if a young person is so inclined, the law is
      804
      less likely to stop him from starting that activity than it is to discourage him from seeking medical and moral advice. It is generally accepted that girls mature physically earlier than boys, and so they do, but that is a double-edged argument. If physical maturity is to be the determining point, the age of consent for girls at least would have to go down below 16.
      Some of my hon. Friends say, "Ah"—particularly my female hon. Friends, I find—"the real point is that girls are so much more psychologically mature at 16 than boys." I am unconvinced of that—not as unconvinced as I was when I was 16, but I see no particular reason to think that boys are in much greater danger from older men than girls are.
      It is said that boys can be sexually very ambivalent in their teens and thus particularly vulnerable to seduction by older men, which can make them permanently homosexual when they might otherwise have worked through their doubts and proclivities to a normal homosexual orientation, as most people would regard it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Heterosexual."' A normal heterosexual orientation. I am grateful. I will not have to tamper with Hansard.
      10.15 pm
      The evidence seems to be that those who are not homosexually inclined find homosexual activity repugnant; that those who are generally know it well before they are 16; and that those who are confused and ambivalent are not going to be fixated for life, one way or another, according to the nature of their sexual experience, if any, at the age of 16 or 17. Indeed, for those going through a temporary phase, the knowledge that they are doing so under the threat of prosecution—of their partner, if not of themselves—cannot be conducive to a satisfactory resolution of their uncertainties.
      If the reply is that 16 and 17-year-olds are never prosecuted in practice—and that the law is just to ensure that older, exploitative partners can be—there are better and more honest ways of doing so, as provided by the amendments to new clause 1 and new clause 8, tabled by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw, which I hope will be extended in the House of Lords.
      The age of consent properly seeks to protect children before they reach an age where they themselves can choose to be sexually active. Both sexes are now reaching that point earlier, largely because of earlier physical maturation. It makes no sense at all to extend that age of consent far beyond the point where many have, rightly or wrongly, started to engage in sexual relationships of their own volition—the majority heterosexual, the minority homosexual.
      What is needed is a law that ensures that the young of both sexes are not drawn into relationships of either kind by older people exploiting positions of trust and influence. That is why I support amendment (a). The Government are unhappy with the wording, so let them put it right—it is a narrow point—in the House of Lords. I hope that they find a set of words that will ensure that the measure also covers those who organise or financially benefit—
      It being six and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration of the Bill, MADAM SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order [16 June] and the Resolution [18 June], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
      The House divided: Ayes 336, Noes 129.

      Division No. 311]

      [10.19pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Crausby, David

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Ainger, Nick

      Cummings, John

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Alexander, Douglas

      Cunningham, Ms Roseanna

      Allan, Richard

      (Perth)

      Allen, Graham

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Armstrong, Ms Hilary

      Darvill, Keith

      Ashton, Joe

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Ballard, Jackie

      Davidson, Ian

      Banks, Tony

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Barron, Kevin

      Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

      Beard, Nigel

      Dewson, Hilton

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Denham, John

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Dismore, Andrew

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Dobbin, Jim

      Berry, Roger

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Blair, Rt Hon Tony

      Doran, Frank

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Dowd, Jim

      Blizzard, Bob

      Duncan, Alan

      Boateng, Paul

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Body, Sir Richard

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Borrow, David

      Edwards, Huw

      Boswell, Tim

      Efford, Clive

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Ennis, Jeff

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Fabricant, Michael

      Brady, Graham

      Fatchett, Derek

      Brake, Tom

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Fisher, Mark

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Browne, Desmond

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Flint, Caroline

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Follett, Barbara

      Burden, Richard

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Burstow, Paul

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Foulkes, George

      Byers, Stephen

      Galloway, George

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Gapes, Mike

      Caborn, Richard

      Gardiner, Barry

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Godsiff, Roger

      Caplin, Ivor

      Goggins, Paul

      Casale, Roger

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Caton, Martin

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Gorrie, Donald

      Clapham, Michael

      Grant, Bernie

      Clark, Dr Lynda

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Grogan, John

      Clelland, David

      Gunnell, John

      Clwyd, Ann

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Coleman, Iain

      Hanson, David

      Colman, Tony

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      Connarty, Michael

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Cooper, Yvette

      Harvey, Nick

      Corbett, Robin

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

      Cotter, Brian

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Cousins, Jim

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      806

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Hesford, Stephen

      Mallaber, Judy

      Hill, Keith

      Mandelson, Peter

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Hoey, Kate

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Home Robertson, John

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Hood, Jimmy

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Hope, Phil

      Martlew, Eric

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Maxton, John

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Meale, Alan

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Merron, Gillian

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Michael, Alun

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Milburn, Alan

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Miller, Andrew

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Mitchell, Austin

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Moffatt, Laura

      Hurst, Alan

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Hutton, John

      Moore, Michael

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Illsley, Eric

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Morley, Elliot

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Jamieson, David

      Mullin, Chris

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hassle)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Johnson, Miss Melanie

      Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)

      (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Norris, Dan

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Oaten, Mark

      Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Olner, Bill

      Jowell, Ms Tessa

      O'Neill, Martin

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Keetch, Paul

      Pickthall, Colin

      Kemp, Fraser

      Plaskitt, James

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

      Pond, Chris

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Pope, Greg

      Key, Robert

      Pound, Stephen

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Kingham, Ms Tess

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Prior, David

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Purchase, Ken

      Lawrence, Ms Jackie

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Laxton, Bob

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Lepper, David

      Radice, Giles

      Levitt, Tom

      Rammell, Bill

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Rapson, Syd

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Raynsford, Nick

      Liddell, Mrs Helen

      Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Linton, Martin

      Rendel, David

      Livingstone, Ken

      Robertson, Rt Hon George

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      (Hamilton S)

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Lock, David

      Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

      Love, Andrew

      Ruane, Chris

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Ruddock, Ms Joan

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Sanders, Adrian

      McDonnell, John

      Savidge, Malcolm

      McIsaac, Shona

      Sawford, Phil

      MacKay, Andrew

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Shaw, Jonathan

      McLeish, Henry

      Sheerman, Barry

      Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      McNulty, Tony

      Short, Rt Hon Clare

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Singh, Marsha

      McWalter, Tony

      Skinner, Dennis

      McWilliam, John

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      807

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      Todd, Mark

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Touhig, Don

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

      Trickett, Jon

      Soley, Clive

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Spellar, John

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Vaz, Keith

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Wallace, James

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Stott, Roger

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Winnick, David

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Stringer, Graham

      Wood, Mike

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Woodward, Shaun

      Stunell, Andrew

      Woolas, Phil

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Mr. Neil Gerrard and

      Timms, Stephen

      Mrs. Eleanor Laing.

      NOES

      Amess, David

      Greenway, John

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Grieve, Dominic

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Arbuthnot, James

      Hammond, Philip

      Atkinson, Peter(Hexham)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Baldry, Tony

      Hayes, John

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Heald, Oliver

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Bercow, John

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Horam, John

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Blunt, Crispin

      Hunter, Andrew

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Brazier, Julian

      Johnson Smith,

      Breed, Colin

      Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Burnett, John

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Butterfill, John

      Lansley, Andrew

      Cann, Jamie

      Letwin, Oliver

      Chope, Christopher

      Lidington, David

      Clappison, James

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

      Loughton, Tim

      (Rushcliffe)

      Luff, Peter

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Cran, James

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Dalyell, Tam

      Mader, Sir David

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Maples, John

      Day, Stephen

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Drew, David

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Moss, Malcolm

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Mudie, George

      Evans, Nigel

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Faber, David

      Ottaway, Richard

      Fallon, Michael

      Page, Richard

      Flight, Howard

      Paice, James

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      paisley, Rev Ian

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Fraser, Christopher

      Randall, John

      Gale, Roger

      Red Wood, Rt Hon John

      Garnier, Edward

      Robathan, Andrew

      Gibb, Nick

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Rogers, Allan

      Gray, James

      Rowlands, Ted

      Green, Damian

      Ruffley, David

      808

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Tredinnick, David

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Trend, Michael

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Wardle, Charles

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Wareing, Robert N

      Smith, Miss Geraldine

      Waterson, Nigel

      (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Wells, Bowen

      Soames, Nicholas

      Whittingdale, John

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Wilkinson, John

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Willetts, David

      Steen, Anthony

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Streeter, Gary

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Swayne, Desmond

      Yeo, Tim

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Mr. Edward Leigh and

      Thompson, William

      Dr. Julian Lewis.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time.
      MADAM SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
      Amendment proposed to the proposed new clause: (a), in line 2, after 'sixteen', insert
      '(except when one party is in a position of authority, influence or trust in relation to the other, in which case both parties must have attained the age of eighteen).'.—[Mr. Ashton.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 194, Noes 234.

      Division No. 312]

      [10.33 pm

      AYES

      Amess, David

      Cotter, Brian

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Cran, James

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Arbuthnot, James

      Dalyell, Tam

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Davidson, Ian

      Baldry, Tony

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Beard, Nigel

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Berth, Rt Hon A J

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Day, Stephen

      Bercow, John

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Drew, David

      Blunt, Crispin

      Duncan, Alan

      Body, Sir Richard

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Boswell, Tim

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Edwards, Huw

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Ennis, Jeff

      Brady, Graham

      Evans, Nigel

      Brazier, Julian

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Fabricant, Michael

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Fallon, Michael

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Flight, Howard

      Burnett, John

      Flint, Caroline

      Burstow, Paul

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Butterfill, John

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Fraser, Christopher

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Gale, Roger

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Gardiner, Barry

      Cann, Jamie

      Garnier, Edward

      Chope, Christopher

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Clappison, James

      Gibb, Nick

      Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      (Rushcliffe)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Collins, Tim

      Gray, James

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Green, Damian

      809

      Greenway, John

      Prior, David

      Grieve, Dominic

      Randall, John

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Rapson, Syd

      Hammond, Philip

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Hawkins, Nick

      Robathan, Andrew

      Hayes, John

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Heald, Oliver

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Rooney, Terry

      Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

      Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Rowlands, Ted

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Ruffley, David

      Home Robertson, John

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Horam, John

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Sheerman, Barry

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Johnson Smith,

      Smith, Miss Geraldine

      Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

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

      Key, Robert

      Snape, Peter

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Soames, Nicholas

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Lansley, Andrew

      Steen, Anthony

      Lawrence, Ms Jackie

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Leigh, Edward

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Letwin, Oliver

      Stott, Roger

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Streeter, Gary

      Lidington, David

      Stunell, Andrew

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Linton, Martin

      Swayne, Desmond

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Loughton, Tim

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Luff, Peter

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Thompson, William

      MacKay, Andrew

      Timms, Stephen

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Todd, Mark

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Tredinnick, David

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Trend, Michael

      Mc Walter, Tony

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      McWilliam, John

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Madel, Sir David

      Wardle, Charles

      Marek, Dr John

      Wareing, Robert N

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Waterson, Nigel

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Webb, Steve

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Wells, Bowen

      Martlew, Eric

      Whittingdale, John

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Wilkinson, John

      Mitchell, Austin

      Willetts, David

      Moss, Malcolm

      winterton, Mrs Ann(Congleton)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Olner, Bill

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Yeo, Tim

      Page, Richard

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Paice, James

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Mr. Joe Ashton and

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Mr. Gerald Bermingham.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Adams, Mrs Irene (paisley N)

      Ballard, Jackie

      Ainger, Nick

      Banks, Tony

      Aisworth, Robert(Cov'try NE)

      Barron, Kevin

      Alexander, Douglas

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Allan, Richard

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Allen, Grahan

      Berry, Roger

      Anderson, Janet(Rossendale)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Armstrong, Ms Hilary

      Blizzard, Bob

      810

      Boateng, Paul

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      Borrow, David

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Harvey, Nick

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Brake, Tom

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Hesford, Stephen

      Browne, Desmond

      Hill, Keith

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Hood, Jimmy

      Burden, Richard

      Hope, Phil

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Byers, Stephen

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Caborn, Richard

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Casale, Roger

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Caton, Martin

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Hurst, Alan

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Hutton, John

      Clapham, Michael

      Illsley, Eric

      Clark, Dr Lynda

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Johnson, Miss Melanie

      Clelland, David

      (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Clwyd, Ann

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Jowell, Ms Tessa

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Colman, Tony

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Connarty, Michael

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Cooper, Yvette

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Keetch, Paul

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Kemp, Fraser

      Crausby, David

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Kingham, Ms Tess

      Darvill, Keith

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Laxton, Bob

      Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

      Lepper, David

      Denham, John

      Levitt, Tom

      Dismore, Andrew

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Dobbin, Jim

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Livingstone, Ken

      Doran, Frank

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Lock, David

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Love, Andrew

      Efford, Clive

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Fatchett, Derek

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Fearn, Ronnie

      McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      McDonnell, John

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      McIsaac, Shona

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

      Foulkes, George

      McNulty, Tony

      Galloway, George

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Gapes, Mike

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Gerrard, Neil

      Mallaber, Judy

      Gilroy, Mrs linda

      Mandelson, peter

      Goggins, Paul

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

      Maxton, John

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Meale, Alan

      Gorrie, Donald

      Merron, Gillian

      Grant, Bernie

      Michael, Alun

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Milburn, Alan

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Miller, Andrew

      Grogan, John

      Moffatt, Laura

      Gunnell, John

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Moore, Michael

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Hanson, David

      Morgan, Rhodri(Cardiff W)

      811

      Morley, Elliot

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Norris, Dan

      Soley, Clive

      Oaten, Mark

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      O'Neill, Martin

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Pickthall, Colin

      Stringer, Graham

      Plaskitt, James

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Pond, Chris

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Pope, Greg

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Pound, Stephen

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Purchase, Ken

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Touhig, Don

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Trickett, Jon

      Rammell, Bill

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Rendel, David

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Vaz, Keith

      Ruane, Chris

      Wallace, James

      Ruddock, Ms Joan

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Wood, Mike

      Sawford, Phil

      Woolas, Phil

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Skinner, Dennis

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Mr. David Jamieson and

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Mr. Jim Dowd.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Clause added to the Bill.
      It being after six and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings, further consideration stood adjourned.
      Bill to be further considered tomorrow.

      DELEGATED LEGISLATION
      Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

      DELEGATED LEGISLATION
        HOMELESSNESS (SCOTLAND)
        That the draft Homelessness (Decisions on Referrals) (Scotland) Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 14th May, be approved.
        HOMELESSNESS
        That the draft Homelessness (Decisions on Referrals) Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 14th May, be approved.
        FOOD PROTECTION
        That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning) Order 1998 (S.I., 1998, No. 1342), dated 29th May 1998, a copy of which was laid before this House on 2nd June, be approved.

        LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
        That the Special Grant Report (No. 35) (HC 758), which was laid before this House on 21st May, be approved.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]
        Question agreed to.

      WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 108 (Welsh Grand Committee),
      That the Welsh Grand Committee shall meet at the Civic Centre, Merthyr Tydfil on Monday 13th July at Eleven o'clock to take questions under Standing Order No. 103 (Welsh Grand Committee (questions for oral answer)), and to consider the matter of the New Economic Agenda for Wales under Standing Order No. 107 (Welsh Grand Committee (matters relating exclusively to Wales)), proceedings being interrupted at half past Four o'clock—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]
      Question agreed to.

      COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND PRIVILEGES
      Ordered,
      That Mr. Quentin Davies be discharged from the Committee on Standards and Privileges and Sir Alastair Goodlad be added to the Committee.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]

      ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
      Ordered,
      That Mr. James Cran be discharged from the Administration Committee and Mr. Oliver Heald be added to the Committee.—[Mr. George Mudie, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

      CATERING COMMITTEE
      Ordered,
      That Mr. Stephen Day be discharged from the Catering Committee and Mrs. Jacqui Lait be added to the Committee.—[Mr. George Mudie, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

      CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT COMMITTEE
      Ordered,
      That Mr. Damian Green be discharged from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee and Mr. David Faber be added to the Committee.—[Mr. George Mudie, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

      ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND REGIONAL FFAIRS COMMITTEE
      Ordered,
      That Mr. Philip Hammond be discharged from the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee and Mrs. Eleanor Laing be added to the Committee.—[Mr. George Mudie, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

      SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE
      Ordered,
      That Mrs. Caroline Spelman be discharged from the Science and Technology Committee and Mrs. Jacqui Lait be added to the Committee.—[Mr. George Mudie, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

      TRADE AND INDUSTRY COMMITTEE
      Ordered,
      That Joan Walley be discharged from the Trade and Industry Committee and Ms Linda Perham be added to the Committee.—[Mr. George Mudie, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

      WELSH AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
      Ordered,
      That Mr. John Bercow be discharged from the Welsh Affairs Committee and Dr. Julian Lewis be added to the Committee.—[Mr. George Mudie, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  Fishing and Cockle Industry (Essex)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]
  10.47 pm
  Mr. David Amess(Southend, West): This time two weeks ago, I had the privilege to lead a small delegation to Brussels to meet Commissioner Emma Bonino. The purpose of the meeting was to ascertain exactly where the buck stops.
  Following meetings with local fishermen and cocklers, there was clearly some concern as to where ultimate responsibility lay. I mean it in good faith when I say that I am not pointing the accusing finger. I am trying to be the honest broker. I would say that Miss Bonino received us most courteously. She made no disparaging remarks about Her Majesty's Government since 1 May 1997, or about the previous Government. However, I should tell the Minister that, on a number of issues that we raised, Miss Bonino shook her head and said, "These matters are the responsibility of the national Government."
  I wish to run through the issues tonight. I ask the Minister to reflect on them. If he does not have time tonight to respond to them in detail, perhaps he will write to me. I simply want to know whether, in the Minister's judgment, the issues that I raise tonight are his responsibility or those of the Commission. I told Miss Bonino that I would send her a copy of the Hansard of this debate, and she said that she would read it and reflect on what the Minister says.
  As we all know, fishing is mentioned in the Domesday book. In the delegation, I was delighted to have with me a representative of local fishermen, Mr. Paul Gilson, and a representative of the local cocklers, Councillor Tony Meddle—not a councillor of Southend borough council, but a town councillor. Both gentlemen acquitted themselves extremely well during the meeting with Miss Bonino. I am delighted to see in the Chamber tonight my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing), my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and the hon. Members for Colchester (Mr. Russell) and for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy).
  The main message to the Minister tonight is that there are plans to amend the common fisheries policy. A questionnaire that may have been instigated by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was directed to local fishermen, following a delegation that I took to Brussels with—this is a delicate matter—the previous Member for Castle Point. I congratulate all the fishermen, especially those in Southend, on their involvement, and on their valuable suggestions and proposals.
  To the fishermen, the main thrust of the meeting with Commissioner Bonino was the regional management of stocks. Local fishermen have voiced their concerns to me on several occasions about the problems of stock conservation in their area. They feel that, ever since the inception of the common fisheries policy, the inshore fleet has been treated unfairly, especially since the majority of the United Kingdom's track record for sole was established by the inshore fleet in the south east. MAFF scientists have said that what the inshore fishermen take is insignificant. In the example of Gallidoro, at one stage, one man owned as much sole as the whole of the non-sector, which is pretty extraordinary.

  815
  Fishermen have claimed that, over the years, attempts were made by the Kent and Essex sea fisheries committee to correct that alleged injustice. They have come up with a plan for the regional management of fish stocks as an alternative to the CFP. Two weeks ago, in Brussels, we presented that to Commissioner Bonino. She said that, as far as she was concerned, anything inside the six-mile limit was entirely the responsibility of national Governments. Will the Minister clarify that point, and say whether he accepts what Miss Bonino said?
  Local fishermen in Southend are keen to have a greater role on this issue. They see article 17(1)(a) and (b) of the new regulations as the way forward. The article states:
  "Member States may take measures for the conservation and management of stocks in the case of strictly local stocks which are of interest solely to the fishermen of the Member State concerned, or in the form of conditions or detailed arrangements designed to limit the catches by technical measures supplementing those laid down in the Community legislation on fisheries, or going beyond the minimum requirements laid down in the said legislation, provided that such measures apply solely to the fishermen of the Member State concerned, are compatible with Community law, and are in conformity with the Common Fisheries Policy."
  The upshot is that Commissioner Bonino thinks it entirely possible, without our passing fresh legislation, for us to embark on the regional management of stocks.
  Our local fishermen are honest, hard-working people, and their main objective is the preservation of stocks. They want the fish to come to them, rather than vice versa. At the moment they are suffering poor catches because the fish are not in their area. They are also the victims of the continuing conflict between vessels of under and over 10 m—between small and large boats, in other words. The boats in Southend are under 17 m.
  Will the Minister encourage and endorse voluntary agreements between member states—Commissioner Bonino said that that was within his power—to conserve fish stocks? Will he support local Southend fishermen in fostering links with their European competitors?
  The main issue to do with dredging, as the hon. Member for Colchester will know, concerns the impact of increased silting on fish stocks. Local fishermen tell me that it is having an adverse impact on the size of fish and on boats' ability to catch them. Will the Minister undertake scientific investigations into the impact of increased silting on fish stocks? No doubt he will tell me that they are already under way, but I am not sure that the investigations cover everything that the fishermen want analysed. Everything that I have said so far is supported by the "NFFO News".
  As the Minister knows, the tradition of cockling in Leigh goes back more than 150 years. Cockling emerged from the business of fishing for mussels. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson), who is unfortunately away at the Council of Europe, has given me a useful document in which tribute is paid to the sterling work of the cocklers during the second world war. It recounts how, on 31 May 1940, a flotilla of six cockle boats —Defender, Letitia, Renown, Endeavour, Reliance and Resolute—left Southend to take part in Operation Dynamo. Over eight hours, those boats embarked 1,200 troops from beyond Dunkirk jetty, transferring them to larger ships offshore.
  During the early hours of 1 June, Letitia's rudder was smashed, and it was taken in tow. Renown broke down, and made fast to the end of Letitia's tow. Half an hour
  816
  later, it hit a mine, and her crew—Frank Osborne, Leslie Osborne and Harry Noakes, who were cousins, and Harold Graham Porter, a young naval rating from Birmingham—were lost.
  At a ceremony 32 years later, where my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East gave the address, Leigh established a public memorial to the brave men who took part at Dunkirk and to those who lost their lives, to complement the plaques in St. Clement's church, Leigh, and the Methodist church, New road—thanks to the generosity of the donors to the appeal launched 10 months previously. The memorial, in fibre-glass bronze, remains in the beautiful church. It was designed and executed by Cyril Smith of Leigh Hill, and stands on a Cornish granite plinth. The sub-base was supplied by S. Stibbard and Sons.
  I have mentioned that because some people have the impression that hon. Members mention fishermen or cocklers out of selfishness, but the Minister would not dispute that fishermen and cocklers were responsible for brave acts in the second world war, not only in my constituency, but in others. The families of the people I have mentioned are still cockling and fishing in my constituency, and this morning I was privileged to be aboard Renown, where I spoke to local cockle men who gave me examples of exactly what goes on and what their difficulties are.
  At the end of the last century, 21 boats in Leigh-on-Sea were cockling. The suction dredge, colloquially known as the "hoover", was introduced in the 1970s. At the meeting on 9 June, Councillor Tony Meddle spoke to Commissioner Bonino. I praise the attempts of local cocklers to conserve their stocks—they have realised that spat falls have declined, so they have fallen in with the policies of the Kent and Essex sea fisheries committee to try to conserve stocks.
  Last year, local cocklers were permitted to fish for only three days a week. This year, that has been reduced to two days, during five months of the year. The KESFC has allowed for flexibility, and the days can be taken at the cocklers' discretion, depending on weather conditions and other such factors. Under the Thames Estuary Cockle Fishery Order 1993, permitted landings are limited to 500 baskets per fishing period.
  Councillor Meddle raised the subject silting with Miss Bonino in the hope that we might get money from Europe to pay for the dredging of Leigh creek. Will the Minister seriously consider authorising a scientific study into the impact of increased silting on cockle stocks? Given that Southend sadly has increasingly high unemployment—much higher than in other parts of Essex—will he back another Department's attempt to get us European money under stage 2?
  The issuing of licences and temporary licences is the responsibility of the KESFC. I urge that organisation to take into account the necessity for local stock conservation when issuing licences.
  I am very worried about the future of the industry, which is uncertain. I am concerned about the high level of unemployment. The local cockle industry is of fundamental importance to the local economy. It is a real joy to go down to old Leigh and see people from, in particular, the east end of London enjoying their shellfish, especially cockles. The industry employs more than

  817
  100 people. It is seasonal, in the summer months, but it is a great tradition. It is important that we keep the cockle industry alive.
  I want to underline the present position. Since the introduction of the new suction techniques, the industry is 3 per cent. more efficient than it was last year, but the level of cockle stock has not increased by 3 per cent.
  I do not want to introduce a sour note into the debate, but a rather misleading leaflet has been issued by politicians—not of my party. That leaflet is factually incorrect. The two parties involved in it have somehow given the impression that they did not vote to increase restrictions on fishing for cockles on the foreshore from 300 m to 400 m. but they jolly well did. The restriction relates to the months from July to September. I will not dwell too long on the matter, but it does not add much to the debate. The headline, "Cockle war in Southend", is absolutely ridiculous, and again does not add much to the debate.
  Perhaps on another occasion the Minister might consider the issue of cockle licences. Local cockle men are concerned that they cannot automatically pass on their licences if they have an accident or, for whatever reason, can no longer fish for cockles. They want to be able to pass on their licences to other members of their families, rather than the licence being sold out with the family. Cockling in Leigh is very much a family-oriented business. During the general election campaign last year, it seemed that every other house I called on had someone related to a cockier. They feel that, historically, licences have remained within families living in Leigh, and that that should continue.
  A 1992 document entitled "Thames Cockle Fishery" contains two points dealing with hygiene legislation, which local cocklers warned about in 1992. They believe that our European partners are not as tough in enforcing regulations as we are. Last week, I sat on a Committee talking about regulations, on which most hon. Members seemed to feel that we were tough but other European countries were not. The document predicted that if the situation was not contained, vessels from all parts of the UK would move in to take cockles from the Thames estuary. Now, in 1998, we are seeing the impact of the change, exactly as was predicted in 1992.
  Today there have been two completely different emotional subjects, one discussed in the House and one played out in France. Although some may say that cockling and fishing are not of significance tonight, they are very important to my constituency, and also in Kent. I am aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), who cannot be here tonight, has been working closely with cocklers. It is an issue of desperate importance. I hope that the Minister will tell us where the buck stops.
  11.9 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food: Although this issue may not be as great as others that have been discussed tonight or as that being played out in France, it is very important. The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) is right to raise it on behalf of his constituents. I congratulate him on securing this
  818
  Adjournment debate, and on the constructive way in which he put his case. I hope that I can answer most of his questions. However, if he feels that I have missed any of the points he made, he could write to me about them or any other issue, and I should be only too happy to give him a detailed response.
  I stress that the Government are a strong supporter of inshore fisheries, which are important because they maintain a large number of jobs. They often have a low impact on stocks, and we want to give them as much support as we possibly can. The hon. Gentleman referred to Mrs. Bonino, who will read the report of this debate. She is a formidable Commissioner, and I want to put on record our gratitude for the assistance that she has given the Government in dealing with the many problems in the fishing industry that we have had to tackle.
  I can give the hon. Gentleman a detailed answer to his question about who has responsibility for this fishery. The common fisheries policy covers the totality of fisheries in the European Union, but there is an element of flexibility for national measures. As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, we have total control over the six-mile limit, which is an exclusive fisheries zone for United Kingdom vessels. Within the six-mile limit, it is possible for the sea fisheries committees, such as the Kent and Essex SFC, to make local byelaws to regulate fishing activity within their districts. Most committees have adopted regulations to help conserve stocks.
  The byelaws may impose more rigorous requirements than Community legislation, but they must not undermine Community legislation by setting lower standards. Generally speaking, that does not happen, because the fishermen in those areas are keen to apply high standards. United Kingdom Fisheries Departments may adopt national measures for the regulation of fishing activity by UK-registered vessels wherever they fish, but such measures cannot apply to vessels from other member states outside the six-mile and 12-mile zones.
  I appreciate that, in return for adopting more rigorous conservation measures, inshore fishermen want to be exempt from quota management. I have had a number of representations on that. I regret to say that that is not a realistic aim. Under Community rules, all landings made by UK fishing vessels must count against quota. The same applies in other member states. That will certainly remain the position until 2002, and even then it is likely that there will still be some form of TACs and quota system as part of relative stability, which is important to the UK industry.
  The challenge is to find a way of marrying the aspirations of the inshore fleet with the overriding obligation to conserve stocks. The hon. Gentleman mentioned regional management. I am attracted by that approach, and the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations and the Scottish Fishermen's Federation have recently produced a joint position paper, which I am discussing with them.
  My officials have also met the hon. Gentleman's local fishermen to discuss ways of achieving greater flexibility in the Kent and Essex SFC area. Voluntary arrangements can be made, and we are willing to talk to the Commission and to his local fishermen about the measures that they want and that can be operated within the rules. MAFF officials are already exploring such measures with them.

  819
  I understand the concerns of the inshore fishery about sole. It is true that there is a small total allowable catch because of increased activity in the fishery, coupled with reductions in the quota because of pressure on stocks. We have tried to secure additional fish for the inshore fleet through underpinning and international swaps. As a result, an extra 32 tonnes of North sea sole are being made available to the inshore fleet, which is an increase of more than 20 per cent. on the quota that it might otherwise have received. We try to take into account the sector's particular problems.
  I also understand the hon. Gentleman's points about the impact of dredging. He is right to say that we insist on research into that impact. We have also acted on fishermen's concerns about recent proposals by ARC Marine to undertake core sampling on Maplin sands as part of a review of applications made previously by Civil and Marine.
  We have reaffirmed to ARC Marine the concern that the Ministry expressed previously about the disturbance that dredging was likely to cause to crustacea beds and fish spawning in that area. We shall continue to oppose the issue of any production licence by the Crown unless measures can be agreed that will minimise the impact on particular inshore fisheries. We are always willing to consider the inshore fleet's concern; if necessary, of course, the provision exists to undertake research into the impact of dredging.
  820
  The hon. Gentleman also mentioned European grants in relation to dredging. That is a more complicated matter, about which I shall have to write to him, as I cannot deal with it in the two minutes that remain.
  The final and most important matter is cockles. I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the Essex cockle fishery. The Kent and Essex sea fisheries committee has a key role to play in its management. The fact remains, however, that it has been a very bad two years for recruitment to the cockle industry. The Kent and Essex sea fisheries committee has taken action to conserve stocks. I support that action; the committee has acted in a responsible way.
  It is difficult when the revocation of temporary licences and limiting the number of days that the cockle fishermen can fish are involved. However, unless effective action is taken to deal with the serious problem of recruitment, there will be no cockle fishery, so such action has to be undertaken to ensure that there are sustainable stocks for future fishermen. I very much hope that the sea fisheries committee is successful. Indeed, it has been successful in its management, and local fishermen—the hon. Gentleman's constituents—will benefit from increased prosperity through a sustainable and well-managed fishery.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes past Eleven o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Community Legal Services
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he plans to publish details of the proposed expansion of community legal services. [45973]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Lord Chancellor has announced that proposals for a Community Legal Service will be finalised by the beginning of next year, when a consultation paper will be issued.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he expects to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Walsall, North of 11 May regarding evidence from professional witnesses in housing eviction cases; and for what reason no acknowledgment was sent at the time. [46090]

  Mr. Hoon
  My hon. Friend's letter was received by the Lord Chancellor's Department on 12 May and he should now be in receipt of my reply of 9 June. The Department's published target is to respond to all letters from hon. Members within 20 working days of receipt. The reply in this instance was provided within this target.

  Fast-track Cases
  Mr. Bruce George
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he will publish his consultation paper on a costs regime for fast-track cases. [47315]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Lord Chancellor has today published a consultation paper on a cost regime for the fast track entitled "Justice at the Right Price" and copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

PRIME MINISTER

  Japanese Prisoners of War
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his meeting with Japanese prisoners of war on 10 June. [45812]

  The Prime Minister
  On 10 June I met the Chairman of the Japanese Labour Camps Survivors Association and the Chairman of the Association of British Civilian Internees Far East Region.
  350
  I explained the efforts that the Government have made on behalf of the former prisoners. In response to our representations, the Japanese Prime Minister had made an official apology on behalf of his Government and announced a new package of measures to promote reconciliation.

  I also agreed to consider a legal opinion the former prisoners had received on whether it is possible to re-open the 1951 Peace Treaty. I explained that I did not want to raise false hopes about this as the Government had already received legal advice in the opposite sense.

  Interception of Communications
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister when he expects to publish the 1997 report of the Commissioner into the operation of the Interception of Communications Act 1985. [46255]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 16 June 1998]: Shortly.

  Election Pledges
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Prime Minister on what date he plans to publish the Government's report on progress on election pledges and other matters; and if he will make a statement. [46385]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 18 June 1998]: The Annual Report will be published shortly.

  European Social Fund (Wales)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will ensure that the powers of the Secretary of State for Wales in respect of the administration of the European Social Fund are comparable to, or greater than, those of the heads of Government regional offices in England; and if he will make a statement. [46703]

  The Prime Minister
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales already has responsibility for training policy in Wales, including the management of the European Social Fund.

  Intelligence and Security Committee
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy that there be an annual debate on the annual report presented to him by the Intelligence and Security Committee. [46712]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 19 June 1998]:As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House made clear on 4 June 1998, Official Report, column 507, in her reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) the Government intend to hold a regular debate on the intelligence and security services. The arrangements for any debate will be a matter for discussion and agreement through the usual channels and with the Intelligence and Security Committee.

  Social Exclusion Unit
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to include disability within the future work programme of the Social Exclusion Unit. [46812]
  351
  The Prime Minister
  Decisions on the future work programme of the Social Exclusion Unit will be announced in due course.

  Honours System
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will ensure that no recommendation for an honour is made for anyone who minimises their tax liability by forming a company only for this purpose; and if he will make a statement. [46665]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 19 June 1998]: I recommend people for honours on the basis of their achievement and service to others, in changing things and making a difference. Each case is considered on its merits, and all circumstances are taken into account. No recommendation would proceed if it brought the honours system into disrepute.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 2 February 1998,Official Report, column 476, when he expects to make an announcement in respect of the coordination within Government of animal welfare policies. [46971]

  The Prime Minister
  An announcement will be made as soon as possible.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the result of Her Majesty's Government's discussions with the Secretary-General of the Arab League on 18 June as to the feasibility of conducting a trial of the Libyan suspects for the Lockerbie bombing in a third country. [46959]

  The Prime Minister
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs met the Secretary-General of the Arab League on 18 June. They agreed on the need for urgent progress in resolving the Lockerbie issue. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State stressed the need for early Libyan compliance with the requirements of the relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  National Lottery
  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what was the total interest which accrued on prize moneys not claimed for the National Lottery in the last year. [45824]

  Mr. Banks
  I have asked the Director General of the National Lottery, who is responsible for regulating the operation of the Lottery, to write to my hon. Friend, and copies of his response will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Wembley Stadium
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what plans are being assessed by his Department relating to the 2006 World Cup bid in respect of the redevelopment of Wembley Stadium; [46252]
  352
  (2) what discussions have taken place between his Department and the partners involved in the Wembley Stadium refurbishment plans. [46251]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 17 June 1998]: I am keeping a close watch on how the project is progressing. It is of importance not only to the long term domestic needs of sport in this country, but as an integral part of the bid to host the World Cup in 2006 and a future Olympic Games. Day to day dealings with the development partners are being carried out by the English Sports Council, which is providing £120 million of Lottery funding towards the project.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prisons (Family Rooms)
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisons have(a) creche facilities and (b) family rooms for use by visitors to prisons. [44706]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 8 June 1998]: There are currently 66 prisons that provide a creche facility on either a full or part-time basis.

  Fifteen prisons provide family rooms for use by visitors, but most prisons will provide a room if a requirement is recognised. The Prison Service is about to embark on a review of visiting arrangements with a view to promulgating best practice.

  Prisoner Escort Services
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost to his Department in the last year for which figures are available of the provision of prisoner escort services; and if he will list the expiry date of each existing contract. [46239]

  Ms Quin
  The contracted out court escort service cost the Prison Service £89 million in 1997/98. This represents a full year's operation in seven of the eight contract areas and partial operation in the last (the North of England). The contract for that area commenced in April 1997 but was implemented in two phases, with the second not starting until July.

  The contracts cover the transportation of prisoners, other than those in the highest security category (Category A), from prisons and police stations to court, their custody while there, and their return to prison. In addition, the contract for the North of England includes the option for the provision of hospital bedwatches, day attendance for medical treatment, compassionate home visits, etc. If an establishment exercises this option it meets the charges locally. These are not collated centrally and are not included in the above-mentioned costs.

  The expiry date for each contract is shown in the table. Contracts were let initially for either five or seven year periods but are renewable up to a maximum of fourteen years.
  353

  Area

  Location

  Contractor

  Full

  Commenced 1st Phase

  Expiry Date

  1

  South Wales & South West

  Reliance

  1 October 1996

  1 April 1996

  30 September 2003

  2

  South & South East

  Premier

  1 November 1996

  6 May 1996

  31 October 2003

  3

  London Metro Area

  Securicor

  26 June 1995

  27 June 1994

  30 June 1999

  4

  East Anglia

  Group 4

  1 January 1996

  1 July 1995

  31 December 2000

  5

  West Midlands & Central Wales

  Premier

  1 December 1996

  3 June 1996

  30 November 2003

  6

  Merseyside, Manchester & North Wales

  Group 4

  6 February 1996

  7 August 1995

  31 January 2001

  7

  East Midlands & Humberside

  Group 4

  1 April 1993

  1n/a

  4 April 2001

  8

  North England

  Group 4

  7 July 1997

  7 April 1997

  6 July 2004

  1n/a —not applicable

  Police Establishments
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will reintroduce the system of fixed Home Office establishments for police officer numbers. [45840]

  Mr. Michael
  We have no plans to re-introduce the system of Home Office approved police establishments, which was abolished by the previous Government as one of the changes introduced under the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994 when the right hon. Member was Minister of State, Home Office. We are working with the police to ensure that the resources which the Government make available to them are used as effectively as possible, with a new emphasis on outputs and outcomes rather than on inputs.

  Probation Services
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the extra costs incurred by probation services for every 1,000 extra added to the daily prison population; and if he will make a statement. [46259]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 16 June 1998]: Increases in the prison population produce additional pressures on probation staff, whether they are seconded to prisons and funded by the Prison Service or working in area services and funded by probation grant, but there are too many variables to permit a simple translation of prisoner numbers into costs. However, we are taking workload attributable to pre- and post-release supervision requirements into account in determining what resources should be provided for the probation service.

  Closed Circuit Television
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what responsibility the Metropolitan police has for the installation of closed circuit television schemes. [46369]

  Mr. Michael
  The Metropolitan Police has no statutory duty for the installation of closed circuit television (CCTV) schemes in public places. However, the Commissioner tells me that, in supporting such CCTV systems, the Metropolitan Police provides secondary monitoring to local CCTV initiatives. The police division in the borough covered by CCTV will have a "slave monitoring system", comprising monitors with a control function, capable of accepting pictures from a public place surveillance system. These systems are normally monitored from a local authority or other external CCTV primary monitoring control room. Where a police 354
  response may be required, information is passed to the police division for a decision on police action. This is the case for all the systems, bar those in Oxford Street where the primary monitoring is by police officers. The Metropolitan Police is currently involved in 30 systems, with a further 15 in the planning/installation phase.

  To reflect a positive lead for "Partnership in CCTV", the Metropolitan Police's Community Safety and Partnership Policy Unit has developed comprehensive guidance on Public Place CCTV schemes. The policy reflects the issue of privacy for the individual by promoting accountability and supervision while ensuring flexibility to fulfil the objectives of preventing and detecting crime.

  In addition, the Metropolitan Police uses video technology in a wide range of applications ranging from:
  assisting the police in fighting crime e.g. Operations Bumblebee and Eagle Eye;
  supporting ceremonial and operational events, thus providing protection to the general public and dignitaries;
  support for anti-terrorist activities;
  protection of victims/potential victims of violent crime;
  traffic cameras, roadside/motorway video systems;
  protection of the Metropolitan Police's property and personnel.

  Recidivism
  Sir Peter Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what evidence he has evaluated on the relative re-offending rates of those convicted of sexual offences and those convicted of other categories of offence. [46492]

  Mr. Michael
  Information on known re-offending, as measured by reconvictions, is derived from regular samples drawn from the Offenders Index, a database of criminal careers maintained by the Home Office. The most recently published analysis of reconviction rates of those convicted of sexual and other offences appeared in Home Office Statistical Bulletins 5/97, "Reconvictions of prisoners discharged from prison in 1993", and Home Office Bulletin 6/97, "Reconvictions of those commencing community penalties in 1993".

  A fuller analysis of convictions and reconvictions for sexual offending was published in 1997 as Home Office Research Findings Number 55, "The prevalence of convictions for sexual offending".

  Copies of these publications are in the Library.

  Criminal Appeals
  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to allow the disclosure of lost or spoiled evidence in criminal proceedings to be permitted as grounds for an appeal. [46293]

  Mr. Michael
  A defendant may appeal against conviction on indictment in England and Wales on grounds of law, fact or mixed fact and law. When considering such appeals, under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, as amended, the Court of Appeal has unfettered discretion to receive evidence connected with the proceedings, including evidence heard at the trial, evidence available at the time of the trial but not adduced and fresh evidence which has come to light since the trial.

  Postal and Proxy Voting
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to change the postal and proxy vote application forms to reduce the possibilities of fraud. [46793]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Working Party on Electoral Procedures, which I chair, is examining both postal and proxy voting procedures, including the application forms which are used. We will pay particular attention to the need to achieve a balance between accessibility and the prevention of abuse.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list the species and numbers of animals ordered to be given euthanasia by the Home Office Inspectorate in(a) 1996, (b) 1997 and (c) 1998, owing to the level of suffering to which they were subjected; [46585]

  (2) on how many occasions in (a) 1996, (b) 1997 and (c) 1998 the Home Office Inspectorate has ordered animals used in scientific procedures to be given euthanasia owing to the level of suffering the animals were subjected to. [46584]

  Mr. George Howarth
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Under section 18(3) of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, should a member of the Inspectorate consider that a protected animal is undergoing excessive suffering he may order it to be immediately killed by an appropriate method. This power rarely needs to be exercised.

  Section 10(1) of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 requires that all personal licences shall contain an inviolable termination condition: any animal which is being or has been subjected to a regulated procedure and which is in severe pain or severe distress which cannot be alleviated must be humanely killed. However, the overwhelming majority of procedures cause only mild or moderate suffering. It is extremely rare that animals experience, or are allowed by licensees to experience, anything approaching severe pain or distress.
  356
  Project licences also contain severity limits. If these are exceeded, an inspector must be notified. The inspector may ask for the animals to be humanely killed. Any such request is invariably complied with; it is extremely rare that an inspector will need to order animals to be killed.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many current project licences are in operation relating to xenotransplantation experiments within the United Kingdom. [46583]

  Mr. George Howarth
  In view of the wide nature of the hon. Member's question, it will take some time to formulate a reply and I will write to him in due course.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the designated establishments authorised to conduct xenotransplantation experiments on animals within the United Kingdom. [46582]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I cannot provide this information: section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 prohibits the disclosure of information given, or believed to have been given, in confidence. This requirement arises from, inter alia, the need to protect the safety of the scientists and institutions.

  Lewes Prison
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the works to the windows at Lewes Prison, designed to contain noise, to be completed. [46561]

  Ms Quin
  Work to windows in F Wing of Lewes prison is due to be completed by the end of July.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what information his Department has obtained concerning the safety of Kurdish civilians in Northern Cyprus; and if he will make a statement on his policy towards asylum applications from them; [46780]

  (2) from what sources his Department gains information on the human rights situation in Northern Cyprus in order to evaluate asylum claims. [46781]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Every application for asylum is decided in accordance with the provisions of the 1951 United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol. Anyone who demonstrates a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion would be recognised as a refugee. Any rejected applicant has the opportunity to appeal to the Immigration Appellate Authority.

  The Home Office obtains information on the human rights situation in Northern Cyprus from a variety of sources, including the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the United States Department of State, and international organisations such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and Amnesty International. A country assessment on Cyprus, prepared by the Council Information and Policy Unit of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, has been produced and made publicly available. The assessment is one of 35 prepared to provide general background

  357
  information for decision makers. Each assessment is attributed to source material and contains a bibliography. Assessments will be revised and updated approximately every six months.

  The Home office country assessment reports concerns about human rights abuses in Cyprus, including northern Cyprus. At this time, we have received no evidence to show that being of Kurdish ethnic origin alone would single a person out for persecution from either the "TRNC" ("Turkish Republic of Cyprus") authorities or the Turkish troops present in northern Cyprus.

  Sex Offences
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many men have been convicted under the provisions of the Sex Offenders Act 1997, solely in respect of homosexual acts(a) with men over the age of 16 and under the age of 18 years and (b) where more than two persons were present; [46591]

  (2) how many men have been convicted of an offence under section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 1967 under the provision stipulating that privacy does not pertain where more than two people are present. [46592]

  Mr. Michael
  The Sex Offenders Act 1997 requires sex offenders, in the categories covered by the Act, to register details of their name and address with the police. The only offences created by the Act relate to failure to register or the supply of false registration information. These offences began to be identified separately on the Home Office Court Proceedings database from 1 January 1998, although the information recorded does not identify

  Number of persons prosecuted at magistrates' courts and convicted1 at all courts for offences under Section 1 of the Indecency with Children Act 1960 and Sections 25 and 26 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956, England and Wales, 1986–96

  Offence

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Gross indecency with children—s1 of the Indecency with Children Act 1960

  Prosecutions

  263

  284

  226

  277

  317

  239

  261

  257

  216

  171

  158

  Convictions

  243

  248

  246

  219

  276

  219

  228

  203

  189

  155

  162

  Householder permitting girl under 13 years or under 16 years but 13 or over to use premises for intercourse—s25 and s26 of the Sexual Offences Act 19562

  Prosecutions

  4

  7

  10

  6

  7

  3

  9

  8

  —

  4

  4

  Convictions

  2

  6

  7

  3

  5

  1

  3

  6

  2

  3

  —

  1 Includes persons proceeded against in earlier years or for other offences

  2 Information collected centrally on the Home Office Court Proceedings database cannot identify the circumstances under s25 (relating to girls aged under 13) separately from those under s26 (relating to girls aged under 16 but 13 or over)

  Mark Darren Day
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 6 April 1998,Official Report, columns 26–27, if he will report on progress in the consideration by the Criminal Cases Review Commission of the case of Mark Darren Day, convicted of murder on 26 March 1993. [46079]

  Mr. Michael
  I understand that Mr. Day's application has reached the stage of a detailed review, but the Commission is unable to say when it will conclude its consideration.

  Prostitution
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to amend the Street
  358
  whether the offender had previously committed either a heterosexual or homosexual offence. Data are not available centrally prior to this date and provisional data for the first quarter of 1998 will not be available until the autumn.

  Section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 1967 provides that a homosexual act which takes place in private between consenting parties of the age of consent shall not be an offence if it takes place in private. By virtue of section 1(2)(a), however, such an act is not regarded as taking place in private if more than two persons are present. The offence information held centrally on convictions under the Act does not identify the circumstances or location in which the offence was committed.

  In 1996, 112 offenders aged 18 or over were convicted of a homosexual act of buggery or indecency between males where the second party was aged 18 or over. A further 14 offenders aged 16 or over were also convicted for the same offences, where the second party was aged 16 or over.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list, for each of the past 10 years(a) the number of prosecutions under section 25 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 and (b) the number of convictions obtained; [46541]

  (2) if he will list, for each of the past 10 years (a) the number of prosecutions under section 1 of the Indecency with Children Act 1960 and (b) the number of convictions obtained. [46540]

  Mr. Michael
  Available information for 1986 to 1996 (latest available) is given in the table.

  Offences Act 1959 to distinguish between offences committed by adults and offences committed by children. [46539]

  Mr. Michael
  The Government believe that the criminal justice system should treat children who are involved in prostitution differently from women. The Government's primary concern is to protect and deter children, both boys and girls, from becoming caught up in prostitution and to recognise that they are frequently the victims of coercion and abuse.

  The Government have recently announced their intention to conduct a review of sexual offences and penalties. In the light of this, we will want to consider very carefully the laws relating to soliciting, for women

  359
  and men and young boys and girls, but we do not believe that legalising child prostitution would help to protect children.

  Although the Street Offences Act 1959 does not distinguish women prostitutes from girl prostitutes, the numbers of girls who have been prosecuted or cautioned for soliciting offences is small. The police, together with children's charities and others, have developed guidelines to ensure that children involved in prostitution are treated as victims in need of welfare rather than as offenders.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he has issued to police forces in England and Wales on liaising with other agencies to make provision for young people to leave prostitution. [46543]

  Mr. Michael
  The general principles for inter-agency co-operation for the protection of children were set out in inter-departmental guidance issued under the Children Act 1989 to the police and other agencies in 1991. The Government are currently consulting on revised proposals for inter-agency co-operation to safeguard children.

  The Association of Chief Police Officers has also adopted best practice guidelines for the police that emphasise that children caught up in prostitution should normally be treated as victims and in need of help, rather than criminals. These guidelines were drawn up in discussion with the Children's Society and other agencies, the Department of Health and the Home Office, and emphasise the need for multi-agency partnerships, particularly with local social services, in dealing with child prostitution.

  These guidelines were piloted in Wolverhampton and Nottingham, where they are regarded as having been a success. The pilots are now being evaluated independently by the Home Office.

  My noble Friend Lord Williams of Mostyn announced on 30 March 1998, Official Report, House of Lords, column 9, that new guidance on how best to deal with the problem of children involved in prostitution will be issued in the autumn. It will take account of the Association of Chief Police Officers' guidelines on dealing with children involved in prostitution, the Crime and Disorder Bill [Lords], and the response to the Government's current consultation exercise on proposals for inter-agency co-operation, together with prevention, care and rehabilitation of children involved in prostitution or those at risk of prostitution.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to change the law to increase sentences for those convicted of living off the immoral earnings of a child under 16. [46542]

  Mr. Michael
  The Government want to ensure that severe penalties are available for those involved in child prostitution. I have announced a review of all sexual offences and will be considering possible changes to such penalties in the context of that review.

  Protection from Harassment Act
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 will be implemented. [46230]
  360
  Mr. Hoon
  I have been asked to reply.

  Sections 4 and 5 of the Act are already in force. Subsections 1 and 2 of section 3 are also in force. Subsections 3–9 of section 3 will be brought into force when the work needed to finalise the relevant rules of court is complete. The final period of consultation closed on 12 June and the draft rules will very shortly be submitted to the appropriate rules committees. We expect both the rules and the commencement order for the outstanding provisions of the Act to come into force in September.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  MV Derbyshire
  Maria Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will place in the Library all Government documentation relating to the first formal inquiry into the loss of the MV 'Derbyshire' regardless of whether it is legally privileged, and in particular the document entitled "Derbyshire Statement of Facts Giving Rise to the Formal Investigation". [45264]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The government documentation relating to the Formal Investigation into the loss of the MV 'Derbyshire' is not for publication as it contains internal advice to Ministers and correspondence with legal counsel. The document entitled "Derbyshire Statement of Facts Giving Rise to the Formal Investigation" was circulated to the interested parties in the Master Bundle of documentation for the Formal Investigation which began in October 1987. A copy of the document has been placed in the Library.

  Cleaner Fuel
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what resources he has made available to promote research into green fuel technology. [45442]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  A £60,000 "Life cycle" study of alternative road transport fuels, co-funded by the former Department of Transport and the Department of Trade and Industry, was published in March 1996. A further £1.2 million three year field trial of alternative fuels, funded by DETR, MAFF and DTI, aimed at quantifying their environmental benefits and viability in comparison with conventional fuels under UK conditions, has now been completed. Publication of the report is imminent.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what statistics he has collected on the numbers of(a) local authorities and (b) transport undertakings which have converted their fleets, in whole or part, to run on compressed natural gas, LPG and electricity. [46126]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We do not collect these statistics. However, we do collect statistics on the numbers of vehicle licensed by propulsion type. In 1997, 9,100 vehicles were registered as running on gas or petrol and gas, and 17,400 on electricity. Of the registered electric
  361
  vehicles, the majority fell into the special concessionary group, which consists largely of plant and agricultural vehicles, and exempt vehicles (emergency vehicles, vehicles registered to disabled drivers and vehicles over 25 years old). Of the gas vehicles, 6,700 are private and light goods vehicles. The Natural Gas Vehicles Association estimate that 50–55 local authorities have one or more compressed natural gas vehicles in their fleet. The LPG association believe that several local authorities are using LPG, along with a number of fleet operators such as bus operators and the police. The Electric Vehicles Association state that a number of local authorities have ordered electric vehicles.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with companies operating depot-based vehicle fleets on the merits of converting vehicles to compressed natural gas. [46127]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Ministers have spoken about the merits of converting fleets to run on gas fuels on a number of occasions to audiences including large fleet operators and local authorities. In addition, the Government have provided £6 million of funding to the Energy Saving Trust for its three year Powershift programme which promotes the use of alternative fuels like compressed natural gas by providing grants of up to half the capital cost of converting a vehicle to run on alternative fuel, and put in place a number of fiscal incentives to encourage the use of gas fuels.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures his Department has undertaken since May 1997 to encourage local authorities to provide environmentally-friendly forms of public transport. [46044]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Under the National Air Quality Strategy, through the process of local air quality management, local authorities are responsible for ensuring that National Air Quality Strategy objectives are met in their areas. The Government have introduced a number of measures to encourage the use of more environmentally friendly public transport to help with this process. At the last Budget, 17 March 1998,Official Report, columns 1097–1112, the Chancellor announced that a graduated VED scheme for buses with an incentive of up to £500 for those vehicles meeting stringent emissions standards would begin on 1 January 1999. He also announced the creation of a greater duty differential between ordinary diesel and ultra low sulphur diesel, providing a greater incentive for operators to use this cleaner fuel, and that the Government will consult on how bus fuel rebate can better be targeted to help operators who run cleaner vehicles. The duty on road fuel gases was also frozen for the second successive budget.

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if coaches will be directed to Greenwich from Central London via the Dartford Tunnel in the event of the Jubilee Line extension not being fully operational by the time the Millennium Dome opens. [45746]
  362
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  London Underground Ltd. currently estimate that the Jubilee Line Extension (JLE) will be fully operational by Spring 1999. In the extremely unlikely event that the JLE is not fully operational by the end of 1999, there would be several potential alternative routes and transport modes for journeys to and from the Millennium Experience in North Greenwich. London Transport is considering such options in the context of contingency planning for any operating difficulties that may occur after it is open. The use of a direct coach service from Central London to the Dome may be an option, but it would be unlikely to be necessary to send all coaches via the M25, A2 and A102(M), although that will be the recommended route for coaches going to the Millennium Experience from outside the M25.

  London Underground
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 9 June 1998,Official Report, columns 515–16, concerning London Underground, if the contracts drawn up with Price Waterhouse and Freshfields to provide, respectively, financial and legal advice are fixed price contracts; and what the value or estimated value is of these contracts. [46131]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The contracts which have been drawn up with Freshfields and Price Waterhouse to provide advice jointly to the Government and London Transport on implementing a Public/Private Partnership for London Underground are not fixed price contracts. For reasons of commercial confidentiality, it is not possible to give a figure for the estimated value of the contracts. We will, of course, report aggregate figures for the total cost of advice on implementing the Public/Private Partnership in due course.

  Economic Development and Regeneration
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the Government's local economic development and regeneration policies. [45852]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 18 June 1998]: The Government are determined to join with local government, the voluntary and private sectors and local communities in a concerted attack against the multiple causes of social and economic decline—unemployment, bad housing, crime, poor health and a degraded environment.

  Regeneration policies will play a key part in this. The Government are therefore undertaking a comprehensive review of regeneration policies. A discussion paper on the future of regeneration—"The Way Forward"—has been produced as a result of this review.

  Regional Development Agencies (RDAs): The White Paper on Regional Development Agencies (RDAs), "Building Partnerships for Prosperity" (Cm 3814), published on 3 December 1997, set out the Government's proposals for the creation of a new Regional Development Agency in each of the English Regions. The Regional Development Agencies Bill, which had its Third Reading on 1 April 1998, Official Report, columns 1366–85, will put in place the legislative framework for RDAs' work.
  363
  RDAs will provide the means for ensuring effective, properly co-ordinated regional economic development. One of their first and most important tasks will be to draw up a regional economic strategy for their region. This will provide proper strategic direction to regional economic development work: regeneration, inward investment, business support, skills training and sustainable development.

  RDAs will contribute towards the better coordination of regeneration programmes by bringing together English Partnerships, the Single Regeneration Budget Challenge Fund and the rural regeneration work of the Rural Development Commission. They will continue to work with local partnerships formed between local authorities, business and the voluntary sector.

  Single Regeneration Budget (SRB): The Single Regeneration Budget (SRB) currently provides over £3.4 billion, in total, for the three years 1997–98 to 1999–2000.

  Within the £3.4 billion SRB total, nearly £1.7 billion is currently allocated to some 550 partnership schemes under rounds 1 to 3 of the SRB Challenge Fund.

  The balance of available SRB resources—over £1.7 billion over the 3-year period—is currently allocated to fund commitments under earlier programmes such as English Partnerships, UDCs, Housing Action Trusts, Estate Action, City Challenge etc. which all form part of the SRB.

  The Government announced, on 30 March 1998, the names of the 121 successful Partnerships under Round 4 of the SRB Challenge Fund which stand to get over £300 million. Around £12 million will be available nationally for 1998–99.

  Nearly all the 121 successful Round 4 schemes have multiple objectives, which include social exclusion, employment and training, education, community safety, prevention of drug misuse, health care and child care. Over half of the schemes include support for ethnic minorities as an explicit objective. This reflects local needs and priorities and the need to look across traditional boundaries in finding solutions.

  The Round 4 schemes aim to attract private sector support of over £400 million and other public sector contributions, including European funding, of over £500 million over their lifetime of up to seven years. This investment will benefit over 600,000 school children, provide training for 86,000 people, provide jobs for over 50,000 target area residents and benefit over 3 million people from community safety initiatives.

  During 1996–97 the SRB Challenge Fund supported schemes which attracted over £577 million of private sector leverage, created/preserved over 78,000 jobs and helped to start up over 16,000 businesses.

  English Partnerships: NDPB delivering regeneration, economic development, job creation, environmental improvement and promoting inward investment through the reclamation and development of derelict, vacant and under-used land and buildings throughout England.

  EP's Investment Fund provides a flexible means to tailor financial support for projects and enables EP to operate as a strategic partner and investor in regeneration. Their Community Investment Fund provides capital
  364
  grants of up to £100,000 to community based projects and enables local communities to participate more effectively in the regeneration of their neighbourhoods.

  Fifty-six British Coal non-operational sites, covering some 6,000 acres, have been transferred to EP who are taking forward their regeneration, reclamation and development. EP have prepared a detailed investment plan including a development strategy for each site. Paula Hay-Plumb, Managing Director (Operations) at EP has been appointed by the Deputy Prime Minister to chair a Coalfields Task Force whose purpose is to identify and develop a specific programme of action to assist coal closure areas by pooling the expertise of government departments and other partners in regeneration.

  EP own the Greenwich Peninsula and are responsible for providing a serviced site for the Millennium Experience. EP have developed a master plan for the long term regeneration of the site which would provide 5,000 homes and 335,300 jobs as well as commercial, leisure, retail, community and education facilities. A competition for the first stage of the development—the Millennium Village—was launched by the Deputy Prime Minister on 10 July 1997. Four shortlisted consortiums submitted their bids on early January 1998 and the winner will be announced shortly.

  Housing Action Trusts (HATs): There are 6 Housing Action Trusts regenerating severely run down housing estates, including refurbishment/redevelopment, creation of jobs and training opportunities, and other improvements. HATs are planning their programmes on the basis of a total public spend of £1,095 million on all HATs to the end of their 10 year lifetimes.

  Estate Action: aims to help local authorities improve unpopular housing estates. Funding is currently for commitments only on continuing schemes approved in 1994–95 or before.

  There are also several other programmes which can help in the regeneration of deprived areas. These include:

  The Special Grants Programme: a small but long standing programme (1997–98 budget £1.3 million) under which grants are given to voluntary organisations undertaking national projects relevant to the Department's policy objectives in housing and regeneration. Grant is generally limited to 3 years and to about half of each project's costs, the remainder coming from private and voluntary sector sources.

  Local Investment Fund (LIF): established in 1994 with £1 million grant and £2 million private sector contribution. LIF provides loans on conventional terms to voluntary organisations for economically viable projects for which conventional finance cannot be raised (e.g. owing to lack of asset base, track record, etc.).

  Groundwork: established in 1985 to tackle a range of environmental problems through partnership with the community and the private sector. DETR provides funding to the Groundwork Foundation and its 41 Trusts in England, Wales and Northern Ireland (£6.675 million for 1997–98).

  Environment Task Force: one of four options available under the New Deal for the young unemployed. It aims to enhance the long term employment prospects of

  365
  18–24 year olds, unemployed and claiming JSA for 6 months or more, through a combination of high quality work experience and training leading to an approved qualification. The ETF will consist of projects which deliver sustainable environmental benefits in line with DETR's policies and objectives.

  Thames Gateway: a major growth opportunity with strong European connections, reinforced by stations on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link. Thames Gateway Planning Framework (RPG9a) aims to maximise the area's potential and improve its image through environmental enhancement and quality development.

  Inner City Religious Council: chaired by Ministers, the ICRC provides the main faith communities with a means of working together to tackle the problems facing inner cities and deprived areas. Its members are drawn from Christian, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim and Sikh faiths. A review of the work of the ICRC has recently been carried out and its findings are being considered.

  Local Authorities

  Local authorities have a key role to play as catalysts for the economic development and regeneration of their areas. Under section 33 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 authorities have powers to promote the economic development of their area. We intend to strengthen their role further by placing a duty on local authorities to promote the economic, social and environmental well being of their area in partnership with other public, private and voluntary organisations, and with local people.

  Air Traffic Control
  Ms Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the role of the Private Finance Initiative in funding the new Scottish centre at Prestwick in relation to the proposed public/private partnership for funding air traffic control. [46440]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 18 June 1998]: The operational requirement of the New Scottish Centre at Prestwick remains unchanged, and the centre is an integral part of the Civil Aviation Authority's two centre strategy—which the Government have endorsed. National Air Traffic Services Ltd. are moving towards contracting with their preferred bidder for the provision of the new centre, and the Government hope that the announcement of the public/private partnership will not delay its development.

  Ms Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when National Air Traffic Services will sign the contract for the new Scottish centre at Prestwick. [46443]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 18 June 1998]: National Air Traffic Services and Sky Solutions, the preferred bidder, are now well advanced in negotiations. NATS will consult with the airlines before seeking CAA Board and Government approval to a contractual commitment.

  Ms Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the number of occasions in the last(a) month and (b) six
  366
  months when allegations have been made of overloads of the air traffic control system; and what has been the outcome of investigations. [46439]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 18 June 1998]From 17 May to 17 June 1998, there have been three overloads reported at the London Area Terminal Control Centre at West Drayton. For the calendar year to 17 June, there have been 22 overloads reported at that centre. There have been none at the Manchester and Scottish and Oceanic Control Centres. The Safety Regulation Group of the Civil Aviation Authority investigates the incidents. To date, reports have been made to National Air Traffic Services Limited (NATS) on 13 of the incidents. NATS implements all relevant recommendations following such incidents.

  Ms Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions in relation to the proposed public/private partnership for National Air Traffic Services, what proportion of the 51 per cent. of the shares held in the private sector will be reserved for employees. [46446]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 18 June 1998]The Government are contemplating reserving up to 10 per cent. of the shares held in the private sector for National Air Traffic Services' employees.

  Ms Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of alternative options for the future funding of air traffic control services; and if he will publish the arrangements for consultation on the Government's preferred option. [46442]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 18 June 1998]The Government considered the following options:Establishing National Air Traffic Services Ltd as a separate public sector body: this option was not feasible without significant relaxation of Government borrowing controls, and provided no real incentive to improve efficiency or drive the business forward;
  Maintaining air traffic control provision as a subsidiary of the Civil Aviation Authority: this option provided no incentives for efficiency, would not separate regulation from service provision, and could not provide assurances as to the availability of funding for future investment to cater for demand;
  Setting up a private sector trust along the lines of the Canadian model: this option would not generate real commercial incentives or disciplines, it would be difficult to ensure adequate accountability, and difficult to ensure against the emergence of dominant interests;
  Establishing National Air Traffic Services Ltd as a private sector body providing air traffic control services under contract to the Civil Aviation Authority (the "privatised contractor"): this option did not effect any real separation between service provision and regulation, and there were additional concerns over a possible conflict of interest in the Civil Aviation Authority's being contract manager and regulator.

  The Government intend to consult interested parties on the implementation of their decision in principle, and will publish a consultation paper shortly.

  RAF Northolt
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what contacts, and when, his Department has had with(a) Stagecoach Aviation Ltd and (b) other commercial interests since 2 May 1997 about (i) turning RAF Northolt into a civil

  367
  airport and (ii) increasing the number of civil aircraft movements or the stipulated operating hours for civil aircraft at RAF Northolt. [45291]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 18 June 1998]The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has had only once contact with commercial interests regarding RAF Northolt, notably by letter dated 20 May 1998, from Virgin Executive Jets.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many sites of special scientific interest there are; and what their approximate acreage is in the United Kingdom. [46694]

  Angela Eagle
  As at 17 June, there were 6,526 Sites of Special Scientific Interest in the United Kingdom covering approximately 2.17 million hectares (5.37 million acres).

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list, with their approximate acreage, the sites of special scientific interest in Gloucestershire. [46695]

  Angela Eagle
  As at 17 June there were 119 Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Gloucestershire covering nearly 23,500 hectares (57,900 acres). I will send the hon. Member a complete site list with respective acreages.

  Nuclear Materials (Transportation)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many consignments of low enriched uranium have been air freighted on(a) passenger and (b) cargo airlines from the United Kingdom airports in each of the last 10 years; what quantities of nuclear materials were involved in (a) and (b); what safety arrangements have applied; what advance notice has been given to Ministers; and what plans there are to airfreight uranium from the United Kingdom over the next year. [46817]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  My Department does not collect such data as requested. All air shipments of radioactive material to, from and within the United Kingdom must be made in accordance with the requirements of the International Civil Aviation Organisation's Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air (Class 7) which are given legal force in the United Kingdom by the Air Navigation (Dangerous Goods) Regulations 1994 (SI No 3187) and Amendments 1996 (SI No 3100) and 1997 (SI No 2666). Prior notification of such shipments would be made only where so required by the Technical Instructions.

  Eurostar
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of commercial proposals to run direct regional Eurostar rail services from Scottish and English regional cities to Europe. [46741]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Regional Eurostar rail services are a matter for London and Continental Railways Ltd. (LCR). The Government have, however, asked the 368
  consortium chosen by LCR to operate Eurostar to report by the end of the year on the feasibility of such services.

  Trunk Roads
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he plans to announce the list of trunk road schemes to be approved for construction simultaneously with the publication of the Integrated Transport Strategy White Paper. [46563]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  No. The Roads Review will follow after the Integrated Transport White Paper.

  Road Hauliers
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to introduce a United Kingdom vignette for road hauliers. [46551]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I have no plans at present to do so.

  Transport Expenditure
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his current estimate of his Department's expenditure on(a) national roads, (b) local roads and parking, (c) transport grants and (d) public transport in (i) the current financial year and (ii) the following two financial years. [46773]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The table gives my Department's expenditure plans for the current financial year in as close to the requested format as I am able to provide. The Government will publish their expenditure plans for the rest of the Parliament in the Summer, after the completion of the Comprehensive Spending Review.

  A more detailed breakdown of my Department's planned transport expenditure for 1998–99 can be found in the 1998 Annual Report (Cm 3906).

  Planned transport expenditure for 1998–99

  £ million

  National roads

  1,349

  Local transport (local roads and public transport)

  1623

  Other public transport

  2,220

  o/w

  Support for national railways2

  1,659

  London Transport

  523

  Support for rural buses

  38

  Other transport grants3

  42

  1 Of this total, £449m has been allocated solely for local roads and £63m for public transport. The remaining £111m can be used on either roads or public transport according to local discretion. (DETR figures)

  2Includes Metropolitan Railway Passenger Services Grant, support for residual British Rail activities, Deeds of Assumption Ltd. and support paid by the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising

  3To prevent double counting, only includes those transport grants not included in other sections of the table. Total comprises £40m rail freight grants and £2m grants to local authorities for pre-DVLC pensions

  Note:

  Unless otherwise indicated, the source of data is the DETR 1998 Annual Report

  River Wye
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much public money has been spent by the Environment Agency on(a) the River Wye Navigation Order application under the Transport and Works Act 1992 since the lodging of the application in April 1986 and (b) the River Wye Navigation Bye-Laws under the Water Resources Act 1991 application, since the lodging of the application in October 1994; and if he will make a statement. [46960]

  Angela Eagle
  The costs incurred by the Environment Agency and its predecessor body, the National Rivers Authority (NRA), in promoting an Order to become the navigation authority on the Rivers Wye and Lugg amount to approximately £450,000 since 1995 when the proposals were first put forward. The majority of these costs were incurred in preparing for and conducting the public inquiry following objections to the application submitted to the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Wales in March 1996.

  The costs incurred by the Agency and the NRA since the submission of the application for the confirmation of the River Wye Navigation Byelaws in September 1994 is approximately £114,000. The majority of these costs were incurred in preparing for and conducting a public inquiry into this application which ran immediately after the inquiry into the navigation authority application.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the Government's policy regarding the use of the River Wye for leisure activities. [46958]

  Angela Eagle
  Subject to its environment and recreational duties, it is for the Environment Agency to draw up policies for individual rivers for which it is the responsible authority. The Government do not prepare such policies.

  Low Flying
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many successful prosecutions there have been for civilian low-flying offences in the United Kingdom in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [46549]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Civil Aviation Authority's Aviation Regulation Enforcement Division has carried out the following enforcement action against low flying offences in the years 1993 to 1997. Full figures are not yet available for 1998.

  Year

  Successful prosecutions

  1993

  11

  1994

  5

  1995

  5

  1996

  6

  1997

  4

  1998 (so far)

  4

  In addition, in the same period, the Enforcement Division issued 12 formal cautions and 37 warning letters in respect of low flying offences. One prosecution for low flying is currently pending, and four other cases of alleged low flying are currently under investigation.

  London Regional Transport
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 15 June 1998,Official Report, column 59, on the chairmanship of London Regional Transport, if he will publish his proposals for the method of recruitment to the post as soon as they have been determined. [46546]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Yes.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish the job specification of the Chief Executive of London Regional Transport; and when the Chief Executive's personal annual objectives will be published. [46535]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The job specification for the Chief Executive of London Transport, including the objectives he is to deliver, are as follows:

  He has executive responsibility for all London Transport's activities, with the heads of each main executive arm reporting to him. His objectives for the next two years are:

  1. To ensure that London Transport (Underground Operations, Underground Infrastructure, the Buses and other arms) delivers the Government's objectives;

  2. Strategic planning, including the cascade of targets and funding limits to the constituent parts of LT, consistent with the Government's overall targets; and the monitoring of delivery;

  3. To lead the design and implementation of the Underground PPP in accordance with the Government's policy and timetable;

  4. To work with Government to pave the way for the establishment of Transport for London under the GLA;

  5. To ensure high standards of safety throughout LT; and

  6. To ensure that LT delivers its part in providing links to the Millennium Exhibition.

  The Chief Executive is also to be directly responsible for managing London Underground until a new Managing Director is appointed, and will continue to manage the infrastructure element thereafter.

  Bus Companies (Customer Service)
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 15 June 1998,Official Report, column 59, on bus companies' customer service standards, what advice he has given to London Transport on customer service standards. [46547]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government set London Transport quality of service targets, based on service performance and measures of customer satisfaction, for the London bus network.

  Sapphire
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 9 February 1998,Official Report, column 10, if he will make a statement on the discussions he has

  371
  had with other Government departments concerning the consultation process he announced following the loss of the 'Sapphire% when he expects the consultation process to be completed; and if he will make a statement. [46486]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Other Government departments have made valuable contributions to the Consultation Paper on Fishing Vessel Accidents and the Recovery of Those Lost at Sea. The Consultation Paper will be issued shortly and the results of the consultation process will be announced before the end of the year.

  Houses in Multiple Occupation
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action he proposes to take to improve standards in houses in multiple occupation. [47137]

  Ms Armstrong
  We are determined to ensure that houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) are safe, providing acceptable living conditions and fulfilling our commitment to introduce a national licensing scheme. Work on drawing up proposals for licensing will be given priority in our plans for reforming the existing controls over HMOs. We will consult interested parties later this summer on how a licensing system should work and the standards that it should achieve.

  Our objective is to ensure that all HMOs meet the highest possible standards on fire and other health and safety risks. However, we need to set standards which are achievable and do not involve unnecessary or disproportionate burdens on HMO landlords, who might otherwise withdraw their properties from the market. We need also to ensure a consistent approach with other relevant legislation, including proposals by the Home Office for a universal fire safety duty.

  We have decided against introducing an interim Approved Code of Practice. We consider that our existing powers under the Housing Act 1996 do not enable us to produce an effective and workable code that would deliver the standards we want HMOs to achieve in the longer term. We are also reluctant to introduce two major changes within a relatively short period of time.

  Following consultation, we intend to publish the proposed standards for a licensing system and will issue guidance to local housing authorities on their application prior to the coming into force of the licensing requirements.

  Authorities which have adopted HMO registration schemes containing control provisions are likely to have similar powers under the proposed licensing scheme. We are therefore encouraging all authorities to adopt registration schemes now to facilitate the transition to licensing.

  We will be seeking views, as part of our consultation on licensing, on whether there should be a duty on landlords to maintain acceptable standards in addition to the licensing requirements. We will not be commencing section 73 of the Housing Act 1996 to place a duty on HMO landlords to keep their properties fit for the number of occupants, as we do not consider this duty to be workable in its present form.

DEFENCE

  Defence Attaches
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many new defence attaché posts he plans to establish by 2000. [45235]

  Mr. George Robertson
  As with many other important issues affected by the Strategic Defence Review, we are undertaking a global review of our Defence Attaché coverage. We want to ensure that the number and location of our attaches meet our new security and defence requirements. It is too early to say at this stage what the conclusions might be.

  Education and Training
  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans his Department has to improve the quality of education and training in the armed forces. [45236]

  Dr. Reid
  The Armed Forces already spend substantial sums to ensure high-quality training for Service Personnel. As part of the Strategic Defence Review, we are considering the scope to improve further the education and training provided, and to ensure that the qualifications Service personnel receive are fully recognised and transferable when they return to civilian life.

  Royal Naval College
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next plans to visit the Royal Naval College to discuss its participation in the Greenwich millennium celebration. [45237]

  Mr. George Robertson
  I hope to visit the Royal Naval College soon to sign the head lease which will transfer responsibility for the site to the Greenwich Foundation. The extent of involvement in the Millennium celebrations is rightly a matter for the Foundation.

  Joint Organisations
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps his Department is taking to increase the use of joint organisations in the armed forces. [45238]

  Dr. Reid
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 8 June 1998,Official Report, column 423, the MOD has signed a contract to build a new Joint Services' Command and Staff College at Watchfield. This reflects our commitment to joint training and to joint organisations more generally, one of the main themes of the Strategic Defence Review.

  Strategic Defence Review
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the strategic defence review before the end of July. [45239]

  Mr. George Robertson
  A package of proposals has been submitted to the Cabinet. Once decisions have been taken, the Review's conclusions will be published in a White Paper as quickly as possible thereafter.
  373
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the implications of the Defence Review for defence procurement. [45222]

  Mr. George Robertson
  I refer the hon. Member to the oral answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Rapson),Official Report, columns 683–84.

  RAF Finningley
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on arrangements for the disposal of RAF Finningley. [45240]

  Mr. Spellar
  The RAF Finningley site has been marketed and two bids, both of which include proposals for civil aviation use, are currently under consideration. My Department continues to work closely with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Government Office for Yorkshire and Humberside so that a decision can be made as soon as possible which takes into account all the factors affecting this important regional site.

  Inoculations
  Maria Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the circumstances under which inoculation of forces personnel should be compulsory. [45241]

  Dr. Reid
  Immunisation is vitally important for the protection of UK Service personnel against disease, in the context of public health threats as well as defence against biological warfare agents. At present, MoD policy is that immunisation for both purposes is voluntary, on the basis of informed consent. However, the means of protecting our personnel against such threats are continually reviewed and updated in the light of current circumstances.

  Guardsmen Fisher and Wright
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the prospects of future service in the Scots Guards of Guardsmen Fisher and Wright. [45242]

  Dr. Reid
  No decision has been taken on the future in the Army of Guardsmen Fisher and Wright.

  Benefits
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel are currently claiming benefits. [45243]

  Dr. Reid
  Except in a limited number of circumstances—for example, when personnel are serving overseas—entitlement to DSS benefits is normally a matter between individual Service personnel and the DSS, to which claims are made direct. Therefore, my Department has no overview of the extent of benefits being claimed by Service personnel.

  Export Licences
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with other departments concerning the process of considering arms export licence applications. [45245]
  374
  Mr. Spellar
  Ministry of Defence officials are in daily contact with officials in other Departments, principally the Department of Trade and Industry, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development, as part of the process of considering export licence applications. Ministers occasionally discuss various export issues, including the process of considering such applications.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to(a) reorganise and (b) alter the role of the Territorial Army. [45246]

  Dr. Reid
  I refer the hon. Member to the oral answer I gave to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) earlier today,Official Report, column 686.

  Royal Yeomanry
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the annual cost of the Royal Yeomanry in its chemical defence role; and what would be the cost of giving the role to a similar-sized regular unit. [45247]

  Dr. Reid
  The annual cost of the Royal Yeomanry in the chemical defence role is £3.471m. Comparable costs for a similar sized regular chemical defence unit are not available. However, the costs of paying regular and TA soldiers to perform a particular role for a given period of time are broadly comparable.

  Defence Diversification
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he intends to publish a White Paper on defence diversification; and if he will make a statement. [45248]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Government's plans for defence diversification. [45251]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer my hon. Friends to the oral answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson),Official Report, column 683.

  Chamber of Shipping
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met the Chamber of Shipping to discuss co-operation between his Department and the chamber on defence issues; and if he will make a statement. [45249]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Secretary of State for Defence has not yet met the Chamber of Shipping. However, the Ministry of Defence enjoys a close and productive relationship with the Chamber on defence issues, primarily through the auspices of the Shipping Defence Advisory Committee and its various working groups and sponsored discussions. The MOD looks forward to a continuing dialogue with the Chamber which will, I am sure, provide further opportunity to develop a better appreciation of our respective interests and concerns.

  Army Operational Commitments
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the capacity of the Army to sustain further indefinite operational commitments. [45252]
  375
  Dr. Reid
  The Army is currently heavily committed in Northern Ireland and Bosnia. Our capacity to sustain further indefinite operational commitments would be subject to the specific circumstances pertaining at the time and the scale of the force envisaged.

  Commercial Exploitation Levy Receipts
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what sums have been generated by commercial exploitation levies since 1992. [46489]

  Mr. Spellar
  Commercial Exploitation Levy receipts for the years 1991–92 to 1997–98 are as follows:

  £ million ex VAT

  1991–92

  34.5

  1992–9293

  15.0

  1993–9294

  39.8

  1994–9295

  33.0

  1995–9296

  21.9

  1996–9297

  90.5

  1997–9298

  54.0

  Defence Exports
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which countries have benefited from(a) the Defence Military Assistance Fund, (b) the Defence Policy Fund and (c) the Defence Sales Fund since 1988; and what criteria have been used for disbursements from (i) the Defence Policy Fund and (ii) the Defence Sales Fund. [46490]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer my hon. Friend to the letter from my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces, sent to my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) on 7 May 1998, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House. The letter sets out those countries which have received support from the Defence Policy Fund, the Defence Sales Fund, the Defence Military Assistance Fund and other centrally administered funds in the period since 1988.

  The Defence Policy Fund was an MOD-administered scheme to provide military assistance at no or a reduced cost to selected countries, generally outside the NATO area, in support of defence policy objectives. The criteria

  Review

  Chaired by

  Date established

  Review of the Contribution of Scientists and Engineers to the Public Understanding of Science, Engineering and Technology

  Sir Arnold Wolfendale FRS

  January 1995

  Prior Options Review of the Royal Observatories

  Professor Ian Halliday, University of Wales, Swansea

  July 1995

  The Scientific Group on the Environmental Impact of Deep-Sea Disposal of Offshore Structures

  Professor John Shepherd, Southampton Oceanography Centre

  October 1995

  Prior Options Review of the Central Laboratories of the Research Councils

  Dr. David Fisk, Chief Scientist, Department of the Environment

  November 1995

  Prior Options Review of Public Sector Research Establishments: Agriculture and Plant Science Steering Group1

  Professor Tom Blundell, then Chief Executive, Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research
  Council

  November 1995

  Prior Options Review of Public Sector Research Establishments: Marine and non-Marine Environment Steering Group2

  Dr. Ian Graham-Bryce, Principal, University of Dundee

  January 1996

  376
  used in considering requests against the Fund included the extent to which the UK's strategic interests and defence involvement might have caused us to respond positively to a request for assistance, whether the UK either enjoyed or expected to require valuable defence facilities, whether the UK retained formal defence commitments or links, and the general state of our relations with the country.

  The Defence Sales Fund was designed to assist in the promotion of defence exports by reducing or waiving charges for training related to specific sales which had been secured or were in clear prospect.

  Major Eric Joyce
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what factors underlay the decision not to court-martial Major Eric Joyce, Adjutant-General's Corps. [46302]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 18 June 1998]The decision on whether or not to prosecute a case referred to the Army Prosecuting Authority is made on the prospect of a realistic conviction based on the available evidence, and whether a prosecution is in the public and Service interest. These tests are essentially the same as those applied by the Crown Prosecution Service.

  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on which date the resignation from the British Army of Major Eric Joyce, Adjutant-General's Corps, became effective. [46301]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 18 June 1998]No application has been received from Major Eric Joyce to retire from the British Army.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Reviews
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list, for each of the last four years, the departmental inquiries and reviews instigated by Ministers which have been chaired by individuals outside her Department; and in each case if he will give the date of establishment and the name of the chairman. [44365]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The DTI has initiated the following Inquiries and Reviews since May 1994 which have been chaired by individuals outside the Department.
  377

  Review

  Chaired by

  Date established

  Quinquennial Review of the Teaching Company Scheme

  Sir Robin Nicholson FRS

  March 1996

  Prior Options Review of Public Sector Research Establishments: Food and Nutrition Steering Group3

  Mr. Nick Winterton, Medical Research Council

  July 1996

  Prior Options Review of Public Sector Research Establishments: Health Steering Group4

  Dr. Metters, Department of Health

  July 1996

  Review of the Electricity Trading Arrangements

  Stephen Littlechild, Director-General of Electricity Supply

  January 1998

  1Included the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council's (BBSRC) Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research, Institute of Arable Crops Research, John Innes Centre and Silsoe Research Institute

  2Included the Natural Environment Research Council's (NERC) British Geological Survey, Centre for Coastal and Marine Sciences and Centre for Ecology Hydrology

  3Included the BBSRC's Institute of Food Research and the Medical Research Council's Dunn Nutrition Unit

  4Included the Medical Research Council's Radiobiology Unit, Reproductive Biology Unit, Toxicology Unit and Virology Unit

  British Employees (Overseas Working Conditions)
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many British employees she estimates are currently working for British companies abroad under contracts signed in the United Kingdom; and how many complaints were received by her Department from such employees about working conditions in the last year for which figures are available. [45474]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  My Department collects no information on this subject and receives few complaints from British workers overseas.

  UK structural funds allocations (including community initiatives)

  million ecu, 1996 prices

  1989–1993

  1994–99

  ERDF

  ESF

  EAGGF

  Total

  ERDF

  ESF

  EAGGF

  FIFG

  Total

  Objective 1

  Northern Ireland

  522

  405

  174

  1,101

  896

  468

  247

  20

  1,631

  Highlands and Islands

  0

  0

  0

  0

  193

  59

  60

  21

  334

  Merseyside

  0

  0

  0

  0

  503

  358

  3

  0

  864

  Total objective 1

  522

  405

  174

  1,101

  1,621

  909

  299

  0

  2,829

  Objective 5b

  South West England

  94

  21

  0

  115

  168

  38

  47

  0

  253

  The Marches

  0

  0

  0

  0

  26

  10

  8

  0

  43

  Midlands Uplands

  0

  0

  0

  0

  9

  2

  2

  0

  13

  Northern Uplands

  0

  0

  0

  0

  71

  22

  25

  0

  118

  Lincolnshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  39

  9

  10

  0

  57

  East Anglia

  0

  0

  0

  0

  50

  11

  13

  0

  74

  Rural Wales

  137

  21

  1

  159

  131

  38

  41

  0

  210

  Highlands and Islands

  128

  22

  34

  184

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dumfries and Galloway

  15

  2

  0

  17

  41

  8

  7

  0

  57

  Borders of Scotland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  21

  6

  4

  0

  31

  Central Scotland/Tayside

  0

  0

  0

  0

  18

  5

  3

  0

  26

  Grampian

  0

  0

  0

  0

  29

  6

  5

  0

  40

  Total objective 5b

  375

  65

  35

  475

  602

  155

  165

  0

  922

  Note:

  The current £/ecu exchange rate is £1 = 1.48 ecu. Over the period 1989 to June 1998 the £/ecu exchange rate has averaged £1 = 1.36 ecu.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many special advisers, political advisers and other political appointees are working in her Department; at what annual cost to the public purse including recruitment costs, salaries, pensions and National Insurance contributions; and what was the position in the last full year of the last Government. [43316]

  EU Structural Funds
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the amount of(a) Objective 5b funding and (b) Objective 1 funding spent in the United Kingdom over the last five years, broken down by (i) counties and (ii) projects. [45670]

  Mrs. Roche
  Figures showing funding by counties and projects are not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The table gives allocations for each of the United Kingdom's Objective 1 and 5b regions.

  Mrs. Beckett
  For details of the numbers of Special Advisers and the annual cost of employing them, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) on 11 June 1998,Official Report, column 664.

  National Insurance contributions are excluded from this figure but are paid under the same rules and at the same

  379
  time as for other civil servants. Information on the paybill costs for Special advisers within individual departments is not provided in order to protect the privacy of the individuals concerned.

  Information on the cost of employing Special Advisers in previous years was given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) on 25 November 1997, Official Report, columns 472–73.

  Mid Kent Holdings
  Mr. Green
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she expects to receive undertakings from General Utilities plc about its material influence over Mid Kent Holdings plc. [46552]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  On 15 May I announced my decision to accept undertakings offered by General Utilities PLC and SAUR Water Services plc following the adverse report by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission (MMC) on their proposed bid for Mid Kent Holdings plc, published in 1997.

  Under the terms of the undertakings both companies have agreed not to be party, or give effect, to any joint arrangements in respect of Mid Kent which would give rise to a compulsory reference to the MMC unless the consent of the Secretary of State has been obtained.

  Postal Services
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the future of the Post Office, with particular reference to the ownership of the Royal Mail [46471]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  As announced by my right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade on 6 April 1998,Official Report, column 63, the Government are committed to the Post Office (including Royal Mail) remaining in the public sector and continuing to provide a universal postal service under a uniform tariff structure, with a nationwide network of post offices. Against that background, the Government are reviewing the Post Office's organisation, structure and financing with a view to ensuring that the Post Office can be given greater commercial freedom to enable it to compete effectively in the UK and overseas. We plan to present our proposals in the Autumn.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the progress made in the consideration of liberalisation of postal services within the European Union; when a new directive is expected; and if it will be subject to unanimity or majority vote. [46466]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Postal Services Directive (97/67/EC) was adopted on 15 December 1997, for Member States to implement by February 1999. The Directive sets a maximum monopoly area for the provider of the universal service and a programme for further liberalisation. The Commission must table a proposal before the end of 1998 and the European Parliament and the Council must decide by 1 January 2000 on the further liberalisation to take effect from 1 January 2003. We would expect the basis of any Directive to be Article 100a which is subject to qualified majority voting.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Private Members' Time
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the President of the Council what representations she has received on increasing the time available for private Members'(a) debates and (b) legislation. [45257]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  I have received a number of representation asking for more time on both private Members' debates and legislation.

  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the President of the Council if she will increase the number of days provided for the consideration of private Members' Bills. [45258]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  I have no plans to do so in the current session. The procedure for private Members' bills will be considered by the Modernisation Committee.

  Members' Allowances (Office Technology)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the President of the Council if she will make a statement on the adequacy of Members' allowances in respect of office technology. [45259]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  In its 1996 Report, the Senior Salaries Review Body concluded that the element of the Office Costs Allowance intended for the provision of office equipment was set at an appropriate level. The Report also welcomed the trend towards greater central provision of office equipment. The SSRB is working with the House authorities to consider what further equipment might be provided centrally for MPs' Westminster offices.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Defence Exhibitions
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those officials from his Department who attended(a) the Berlin Air Show in May, (b) the Eurosatory arms fair in Paris in June and (c) the COPEX exhibition in Jordan in April, indicating the costs of their attendance and breaking down the other costs incurred by his Department in connection with these events. [44508]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The following FCO officials attended:

  (a) The Berlin Air Show

  Minister at the British Embassy, Bonn

  First Secretary (Commercial), British Embassy Office, Berlin

  Counsellor (Defence Supply), Bonn—MOD Secondee

  Commercial Officer, British Embassy Office, Berlin

  (b) The Eurosatory Arms Fair in Paris

  HM Ambassador, Paris

  First Secretary (Procurement)—MOD Secondee

  Counsellor (Defence Supply), Bonn—MOD Secondee

  Commercial Officer

  (c) The COPEX Exhibition in Jordan

  HM Ambassador, Amman

  Commercial Secretary, DTI Secondee.

  381
  Officials visited the events for different lengths of time and to calculate the cost of their attendance and other costs incurred would involve disproportionate cost. The costs involved were minimal. The Minister at the British Embassy, Bonn, was a guest of the German Foreign Ministry.

  EU Funds
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) of 7 April 1998,Official Report, column 203, on the European Communities Budget, if he will estimate the United Kingdom share of the funding for the European Women's lobby for 1997; and if he will make a statement on his Department's policy towards the funding by the Commission of lobby groups. [45314]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The UK contributes to the EU budget as a whole, rather than to individual budget lines. Our share of total contributions to the budget in 1997 was 11.61% (after the abatement). The Government recognise that the Commission uses a proportion of its administrative budget to fund certain NGOs involved in the implementation of Community policies. Our policy on all EU spending is that it should be subject to the same principles of rigour and cost-effectiveness as we apply to the UK budget.

  Foreign Policy Centre
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the role of the Foreign Policy Centre in developing the(a) ethical foreign policy and (b) European Union policy, of Her Majesty's Government. [46067]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The Foreign Policy Centre is an independent policy institute. It is established practice for Foreign Office Officials and Ministers to have contact with policy institutes and NGOs and to consider their views when developing policy. The Foreign Office welcomes ideas from outside organisations on all areas of its work, including the role of human rights in foreign policy and European Union policy.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish the names of the special advisers attached to his Department; and if he will indicate whether each of them has been positively vetted. [46063]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 16 June 1998]My Special Advisers are Mr. David Clark and Mr. Andrew Hood. Both have been security cleared to the level of "developed vetting". This term replaced the term "positive vetting" in 1994.

  British Prisoners (Overseas Gaols)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the number of(a) male and (b) female United Kingdom nationals imprisoned in each country overseas for which his Department collates records; and how many are at present under the death sentence. [46517]
  382
  Mr. Fatchett
  Our records show that there are currently 2,366 British nationals in prison overseas. Of these, 4 detainees are under sentence of death.

  The breakdown of those detained is as follows:

  Overseas prisons

  Men

  Women

  Algeria

  1

  —

  Amman

  1

  —

  Andorra

  3

  —

  Antigua

  2

  —

  Argentina

  3

  3

  Australia

  91

  8

  Austria

  16

  1

  Bahamas

  2

  1

  Bahrain

  4

  1

  Bangladesh

  2

  —

  Barbados

  2

  2

  Belgium

  48

  7

  Bolivia

  —

  1

  Bosnia

  1

  —

  Brazil

  14

  9

  Bulgaria

  6

  —

  Burma

  1

  —

  Cambodia

  1

  —

  Cameroon

  1

  —

  Canada

  15

  3

  China

  17

  1

  CIS

  4

  —

  Colombia

  5

  —

  Croatia

  2

  —

  Cuba

  1

  —

  Cyprus

  22

  2

  Czech Republic

  6

  —

  Democratic Republic of Congo

  2

  —

  Denmark

  30

  —

  Djibouti

  2

  —

  Dominican Republic

  3

  1

  Ecuador

  4

  —

  Egypt

  5

  1

  Eritrea

  1

  —

  Estonia

  2

  —

  Ethiopia

  3

  —

  Finland

  1

  —

  France

  287

  13

  Gambia

  3

  —

  Germany

  113

  4

  Ghana

  2

  —

  Gibraltar

  1

  —

  Greece

  19

  1

  Grenada

  2

  1

  Guatemala

  1

  —

  Guinea

  1

  1

  Guyana

  2

  —

  Hong Kong

  83

  3

  Hungary

  5

  1

  Iceland

  1

  —

  India

  21

  3

  Indonesia

  6

  —

  Iran

  4

  —

  Ireland

  24

  —

  Israel

  8

  —

  Italy

  18

  3

  Jamaica

  20

  15

  Japan

  24

  2

  Kazakhstan

  2

  —

  Kenya

  3

  1

  Korea

  8

  —

  Kuwait

  2

  —

  Luxembourg

  2

  —

  Macao

  1

  —

  Malaysia

  1

  —

  Mexico

  4

  —

  Morocco

  39

  5

  383

  Overseas prisons

  Men

  Women

  Mozambique

  1

  —

  Namibia

  1

  —

  Nepal

  3

  —

  Netherlands

  67

  4

  Netherlands Antilles

  1

  —

  New Zealand

  9

  —

  Nigeria

  11

  —

  Norway

  25

  —

  Oman

  3

  —

  Pakistan

  27

  5

  Peru

  5

  —

  Philippines

  19

  —

  Poland

  9

  —

  Portugal

  23

  2

  Qatar

  8

  —

  Romania

  9

  —

  Rwanda

  1

  —

  Sao Tome

  1

  —

  Saudi Arabia

  —

  1

  Sierra Leone

  4

  —

  Singapore

  9

  —

  Slovenia

  5

  —

  South Africa

  49

  4

  Spain

  315

  28

  Sri Lanka

  7

  —

  St. Lucia

  4

  1

  Sweden

  19

  2

  Switzerland

  31

  5

  Syria

  3

  —

  Taiwan

  9

  1

  Tanzania

  2

  —

  Thailand

  105

  13

  Trinidad

  2

  —

  Tunisia

  3

  1

  Turkey

  28

  7

  UAE

  20

  2

  Uganda

  1

  —

  USA

  264

  28

  Venezuela

  8

  2

  Vietnam

  6

  —

  Zambia

  3

  2

  Zimbabwe

  10

  1

  Total

  2,162

  204

  Dependent Territories
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the dependent territories which(a) carry out the death penalty and (b) allow corporal punishment. [46518]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The information is as follows:(a) Bermuda is the only Overseas Territory which has retained the death penalty for murder, though it has not been carried out there since 1977.
  (b) Three Overseas Territories still have provision for judicial corporal punishment on their statute books: Anguilla, the Cayman Islands, and the British Virgin Islands. Judicial Corporal Punishment has actually been used in recent years only in the British Virgin Islands (the last occasion was in 1996).

  Cambodia
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answers to the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) of 20 March 1998,Official Report,
  384
  columns 769–70, what reports from what sources he will take into account when determining the United Kingdom response to future UN resolutions on Cambodia. [46716]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We participate in drafting UN resolutions to press the Cambodian government to improve their human rights record. We gather our information from our Ambassador in Phnom Penh, from our other diplomatic missions, and from respected international organisations and NGOs.

  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he proposes to take to ensure an agreed timetable is established for the start of work by United Nations experts into human rights abuses in Cambodia; and if he will make a statement. [46652]

  Mr. Fatchett
  I pressed Hun Sen last month on the need for a thorough investigation into human rights abuses, following the recent visit to Cambodia by UN experts. The Cambodian Government have since appointed a committee to lead the inquiries. We will continue to press for those responsible for abuses to be brought to justice.

  St. Helena
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 15 June 1998,Official Report, column 17, on the Governor of St. Helena and the Government's budget proposals, if he will list the members of the Executive Council who were present at the meeting advising him on the issue, indicating in each case the basis for their membership of the Council. [46548]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Executive Councillors present at the meeting with the Governor on 30 March, and the basis for their membership of the Council (as provided by the Schedule to the St. Helena Constitution Order 1988) were:

  Hon. Michael Clancy, Chief Secretary

  Hon. Matthew Young, Financial Secretary

  Hon. Kurt De Freitas, Attorney General

  Hon. Eric George, Chairman—Public Health Committee

  Hon. Stedson George, Chairman—Public Works and Services Committee

  Hon. Terrence Richards, Chairman—Agricultural and Natural Resources Committee

  Hon. Robert Robertson, Chairman—Education Committee.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Mediation Network
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to her answer of 23 March 1998,Official Report, column 27, if she will define the involvement of Mediation Network in matters pertaining to policing in Northern Ireland; and if she will publish the names, qualifications and affiliations, including the current and former political allegiances, of those who constitute the board of that organisation. [37821]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Mediation Network has worked with the Royal Ulster Constabulary Training Branch on the RUC's Community awareness programme, and is
  385
  currently working with the RUC and others to develop ideas for the evolution of policing and community relations in Northern Ireland.

  The Mediation Network is an independent voluntary association with charitable status formed to develop alternative, non-violent approaches to conflicts and disputes in Northern Ireland. A list of those on the Executive Committee and much of the other information sought by the hon. Member is to be found in the Annual Reports published by the Mediation Network, a copy of the most recent of which—that for 1996–97—has been placed in the Library.

  I have no knowledge of the current or former political allegiances of any members of Mediation Network.

  Parades Commission
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will instruct the Parades Commission, in reaching its decisions, to publish its decisions relating to each individual criterion contained in the legislation and to indicate what weighting is given to each criterion in each decision. [46997]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Parades Commission is an independent body and as such it would not be appropriate for the Secretary of State to instruct it in the way suggested. It is entirely a matter for the Parades Commission to decide the format in which it should publish its decisions under the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1998. In any case, the determinations published by the Parades Commission to date have, in the Government's view, set out very comprehensively the way in which the Commission has approached the particular parade in question and, in particular, have in each case clearly stated how the Commission has addressed each of the statutory factors which it is required to take into account.

  Police Firearms (US Purchases)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the numbers of firearms, indicating type, make and model, purchased by the Police Authority for Northern Ireland from United States of America sources in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available. [46088]

  Mr. Ingram
  During the last 10 years no firearms have been purchased by the Police Authority for Northern Ireland from United States of America sources.

  Scheduled Offences
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people have been charged with scheduled offences in Northern Ireland since 31 August 1994 in respect of(a) offences committed prior to 31 August 1994 and (b) offences committed since 31 August 1994. [46111]

  Mr. Ingram
  The table shows the number of persons charged with terrorist/serious Public Order type offences during the years 1991–1997. The statistical information system in place does not collate the linking of charges with the date of the offence. To obtain this information in the form requested would incur disproportionate cost.
  386

  Persons charged with terrorist/serious public order offences 1991–1997

  Year

  Number

  1991

  404

  1992

  418

  1993

  372

  1994 to 31 August

  291

  1994 from 1 September

  58

  1995

  440

  1996

  595

  1997

  405

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Agricultural Land
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what estimate she has made of the loss of agricultural land since 1980. [45895]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The Department has made no such estimate.

  We are advised that the Food and Agriculture Organisation—FAO—does not gather such data.

  The United Nations Environment Programme—UNEP—has estimated that 70 per cent. of the world's drylands are suffering some degree of desertification with an estimated 900 million people worldwide at risk from problems of degradation. The 1997 United Nations Development Programme—UNDP—Human Development Report estimated that half of the world's poorest live in marginal lands.

  My Department supports projects bilaterally and multilaterally to combat land degradation, desertification and drought and the implementation of the Convention to Combat Desertification.

WALES

  Food Poisoning
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many cases of food poisoning were registered in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [45885]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The information is given in the table.

  Reported cases of food poisoning in Wales1

  Year

  Number

  1993

  5,078

  1994

  6,163

  1995

  6,540

  1996

  5,662

  1997

  6,161

  1All isolations of Campylobacter are counted as food poisoning incidents

  Source:

  Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre

  Cycling
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he proposes to encourage(a) cycling and (b) greater use of public transport in North East Wales. [45890]

  Mr. Hain
  The government's proposals on cycling and the use of public transport will be dealt with in the Integrated Transport Policy White Paper which will be published shortly. At around the same time, a Welsh Transport Policy Statement will be published drawing out those issues of particular importance to Wales.

  Wrexham and Deeside have recently benefited from Transport Grant funding for packages which include measures to promote cycling and to encourage greater use of public transport.

  Alltami Bypass
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received on the proposed Alltami (Mold-Ewloe) Bypass; and if he will make a statement. [46290]

  Mr. Hain
  A number of organisations and individuals submitted representations about the A494 Trunk Road in general and the proposed Alltami Bypass (which forms part of the A494 Mold to Ewloe Improvement) in particular during the recent consultation exercise on the review of the Welsh trunk road programme. The results of the review will be published later this year.

  Road Safety (Flintshire)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on road safety in Flintshire. [46291]

  Mr. Hain
  The latest figures for road accident casualties in Flintshire are as follows:

  1996

  11997

  Percentage change

  Killed and serious

  110

  94

  -15

  Slight

  867

  862

  -1

  Total

  977

  956

  -2

  1Provisional

  The Government are in the process of consulting on a new national road safety strategy. When this has been settled, specific targets for Wales (post 2000) can be considered.

  A55
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will ensure that his officials undertake a full evaluation of residents' alternative proposals with regard to the proposed closure of the A55 gaps at Coed y Cra, Halkyn, Flintshire prior to any final decision. [46651]

  Mr. Hain
  Yes, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that Welsh Office officials will undertake a full evaluation of residents' alternative proposals with regard to the proposed closure of the A55 gaps at Coed y Cra, Halkyn, Flintshire, prior to any final decision.

  Child Care Strategy
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he will launch the consultation on the national child care strategy in Wales. [47191]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  I am today launching our Green Paper,The National Childcare Strategy in Wales. The principles of the National Childcare Strategy covers the whole of the UK. Our Green Paper sets out the Government's aim to ensure good quality, affordable childcare for children aged 0 to 14 in every neighbourhood, including both formal childcare and support for informal arrangements. It describes how we propose to make that aim a reality for Wales.

  The Green Paper has today been laid before Parliament and copies are available in the Library and the Vote Office.

HEALTH

  Theresa Braybrooke-Tucker
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what date and where the inquest into the death of Theresa Braybrooke-Tucker will be held. [45358]

  Mr. Boateng
  I understand that the inquest into the death of Theresa Braybrooke-Tucker was opened and adjourned on 3 March 1998 and was held at the Town Hall, Waterloo, Bootle. We do not know when it will be reopened.

  Smoking
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the expenditure on anti-tobacco advertising in each of the past 18 years; and what is his estimate of the total(a) numbers and (b) percentages of smokers in each of those years among (i) adults and (ii) children. [36255]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 26 March 1998]Available information on expenditure by the Health Education Authority directly on anti-smoking advertising, on behalf of the Department, in each of the past 18 years is:

  £

  1980

  270,000

  1981

  1,202,000

  1982

  2,052,000

  1983

  1,239,000

  1984

  1,931,000

  1985

  995,000

  1986

  747,000

  1987

  1,868,000

  1988

  480,000

  1989

  661,000

  1990

  1,459,000

  1991

  757,000

  1992

  1,122,000

  1993

  1,741,000

  1994

  3,401,000

  1995

  3,430,000

  1996

  2,783,000

  1997

  2,756,000

  389
  The information available on the number and percentage of smokers is given in the table:

  England

  Prevalence of smoking among adults aged 16 and over

  Prevalence of regular smoking among children aged 11-15

  Year

  Percentage

  Number (000)

  Percentage

  Number (000)

  1980

  39

  14,000

  —

  —

  1982

  35

  12,700

  11

  400

  1984

  33

  12,400

  13

  450

  1986

  32

  12,200

  10

  320

  1988

  31

  11,800

  8

  230

  1990

  29

  11,300

  10

  280

  1992

  28

  10,700

  10

  290

  1993

  —

  —

  10

  290

  1994

  26

  10,200

  12

  360

  1996

  28

  10,800

  13

  390

  Notes:

  1. In this analysis, adult prevalence is based on those aged 16 years and over; child prevalence is based on young people aged 11–15 years

  2. The percentage and number of children who are regular smokers are given (regular smokers are classified as those who smoke at least one cigarette a week)

  3. Numbers of adult smokers are rounded to the nearest 100,000. Numbers of children aged 11–15 smoking regularly are rounded to the nearest 10,000

  Sources:
  Adult prevalence is taken from the General Household Surveys, 1976–1996, conducted by the Office for National Statistics (ONS); questions on smoking have been included biennially. Child prevalence is taken from the Smoking Among Secondary School Children Surveys, 1982–1996, conducted by the ONS on behalf of the Department of Health, these surveys have been biennial, except for the additional survey in 1993. Numbers of smokers have been obtained by combining prevalence with population estimates, supplied by ONS

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many 999 calls were made to the Ambulance Service in the last year for which figures are available. [45698]

  Mr. Boateng
  3.33 million emergency calls were made in England in 1996–97. Full details are contained in "Statistical Bulletin Ambulance Services, England: 1996–97", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Child Mental Health Services
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 8 May 1998,Official Report, columns 536–37, concerning child mental health services, what reviews of child and adolescent mental health services have been undertaken; and if his Department has obtained copies of these and related local action plans. [46130]

  Mr. Boateng
  Reviews have been completed in the South and West, Anglia and Oxford and North West regions of the National Health Service Executive and their reports have been discussed in meetings of the Department's implementation group on child and adolescent mental health services (representing all NHS and social care regions). Reviews in the remaining five regions are being undertaken and are at various stages of 390
  progress. The Department does not expect to receive copies of local action plans stemming from the reviews which are for consideration at regional level.

  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 8 May 1998,Official Report, columns 536–37, concerning child mental health services, to what extent the non-statutory sector is involved in the commissioning and provision of comprehensive mental health services for children and adolescents. [46129]

  Mr. Boateng
  We are aware that the independent sector makes a significant and valuable contribution to the provision of child and adolescent mental health services. A 1994 National Review of Services for the Mental Health of Children and Young People in England (Kurtz, Thornes and Wolkind), reported in relation to the non-statutory sector that 15 per cent. of the child and adolescent psychiatry services included in the survey had made use of inpatient services at twelve private hospitals, mainly for treatment of eating disorders such as anorexia nervosa.

  The same review reported that in planning, including health needs assessment, 42 per cent. of National Health Service purchasing authorities said that they had included voluntary organisations in their discussions. Several had involved particular organisations in a substantial way.

  The Department currently provides grant aid worth some £472,000 per annum to 11 national voluntary bodies in the field of child and adolescent mental health, mainly to support projects having significance for the development of national services.

  Skin Cancer
  Mr. Kemp
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department is taking to increase public awareness of the dangers of skin cancer. [45800]

  Mr. Boateng
  Skin cancer is largely preventable and we are working closely with a wide range of public bodies, including the Health Education Authority, the Health and Safety Executive, the National Radiological Protection Board and the Meteorological Office to raise awareness of the sun's harmful effects. Other agencies such as the fashion and leisure industries are also involved in addressing issues of sun awareness, including making clothing that protects from the sun more easily available through high street retailers. Events which took place during Sun Awareness Week, from 1–7 June 1998, helped to raise the profile of these issues more widely in the media.

  Mr. Kemp
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people(a) were treated for and (b) died of skin cancer in 1997–98. [45801]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information for in-patient treatment (including "day cases") for the latest financial year available, 1995–96, in England, is shown in Table 1 and is based on finished consultant episodes of treatment (FCEs), which represent the number of episodes of care under individual consultants. The same person may be
  391
  counted more than once if they have more than one episode of care. Some skin cancers are excised by a general practitioner or in hospital outpatients and will not be counted.

  The information for the number of people who died of skin cancer, for the latest calendar year available, 1996, in England is shown in Table 2.

  Table 1: 1995–96 financial year—latest available figures for England

  ICD-10 codes

  Primary diagnosis

  FCEs

  C43

  Malignant melanoma of the skin

  7,684

  C44

  Other malignant neoplasms of the skin

  38,960

  Total

  46,644

  Note:

  Data in this table are grossed for both coverage and unknown/invalid clinical data

  Source:

  Department of Health, Hospital Episode Statistics (HES)

  Losses of cash and equipment in the National Health service (England)–1992–93 to 1996–97

  £

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Losses of cash due to theft, fraud, arson, sabotage, neglect of duty or gross carelessness

  181,710

  109,585

  28,558

  813,145

  487,741

  Loss of equipment and property in store and in use, due to culpable causes eg. theft, fraud, arson or sabotage, neglect of duty or gross carelessness

  2,110,781

  1,447,846

  985,387

  1n/a

  1n/a

  1n/a—not available

  Notes:

  1. Losses of cash due to theft etc. are not separately identified by NHS trusts for the period 1992–93 to 1994–95

  2. Loss of equipment and property in store was not separately identified for the period 1995–96 and 1996–97

  Source:

  1. Annual accounts of health authorities (1992–93 to 1996–97)

  2. Annual accounts of Family Health Services Authorities (1992–93 to 1995–96)

  3. Annual summarisation schedules of NHS trusts (1995–96 to 1996–97)

  Social Services White Paper
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he expects to publish the Social Services White Paper before the summer adjournment. [46424]

  Mr. Boateng
  We expect to publish the Social Services White paper in the summer. We do not yet know whether it will be possible to publish it before the summer adjournment.

  Community Health Councils
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when his departmental officials last met representatives of the Association of Community Health Councils; and what matters were discussed. [46523]

  Mr. Milburn
  Departmental officials last met with representatives of the Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales (ACHCEW) on 18 February 1998 and discussed consultation processes. On a more regular basis, there is an ongoing arrangement for the National Health Service Executive Community Health Council Policy and Liaison Group to meet the ACHCEW and the Society of Community Health Council staff twice yearly. All items discussed at these meetings
  392

  Table 2: 1996 calendar year—latest available figures for England

  ICD-9 codes

  Primary diagnosis

  Number of deaths

  172

  Malignant melanoma of skin

  1,291

  173

  Other malignant neoplasms of skin

  351

  Total

  1,642

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics

  NHS (Thefts)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of losses in the NHS due to internal theft for each of the last 10 years. [45833]

  Mr. Boateng
  The most recent information about losses due to theft, arson, sabotage, neglect of duty or gross carelessness is in the table. Losses due to internal theft are not separately identifiable. Comparable information is not available for earlier years.

  are raised by the ACHCEW and the Society on a confidential basis and are not for public disclosure. The next meeting is scheduled for 23 June 1998.

  Chiropody and Podiatric Services
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the statistics that are held centrally concerning chiropody and podiatric services. [46310]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Department collects three categories of statistics.

  Information is collected from National Health Service trusts about patient contacts with their chiropody services on Department of Health annual return KT23. Information is published each year and the most recent summary is "Chiropody services, summary information for 1996–97, England".

  The Department collects annual statistics about the number of chiropody staff employed by the hospital and community health services (HCHS) and in the general medical services. Information about the age, sex and ethnic origin of chiropody staff employed by the HCHS is also collected. Information is published annually, the latest is included in the Department's Statistical Bulletins: "NHS Hospital and Community Health Services non-medical

  393
  staff in England 1987–1997" and "Statistics for General Medical Practitioners in England: 1987–1997" and reference volume "NHS Hospital and Community Health Services non-medical workforce census: England 1996, detailed results".

  National Health Service trusts provide figures for total expenditure on community chiropody services in the annual financial returns. Analysis of these data by individual trusts in England for the years 1994–95 to 1996–97 is available, as is the other information detailed, in the Library.

  Lee Bosley
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his oral statement of 16 June 1998,Official Report, columns 149–50, if the rescheduling of the operation on Lee Bosley to 17 June resulted in an operation planned for another person on that day being cancelled or postponed. [46782]

  Mr. Milburn
  No operation was cancelled or postponed as a direct result of Lee Bosley's operation at St. Thomas' Hospital on 17 June 1998.

  Complaints Procedures
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to review the guidance given to NHS trusts on communicating the results of an independent professional review to a complainant. [46536]

  Mr. Milburn
  Independent professional review was the third stage of the hospital clinical complaints procedure which was in place prior to April 1996. From 1 April 1996 new National Health Service complaints procedures were introduced which do not feature the same process of independent professional review.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will instruct NHS trusts, following an independent professional review, to communicate all of the assessors' findings to the complainant. [46537]

  Mr. Milburn
  Independent professional review was the final stage of the hospital clinical complaints procedures which were replaced in April 1996. Assessors' reports were prepared in confidence for the regional director of public health, who subsequently advised the National Health Service hospital trust or health authority on any comment which would be appropriate on the clinical aspects of its reply to the complainant. This system has now been replaced.

  Under the new procedures, clinical assessors are appointed to independent review panels to advise the panel on those aspects of the complaint involving clinical judgment. Assessors' reports are attached to the final panel report and distribution is the responsibility of the panel chairman within guidelines. The chairman has the right to withhold any part of the panel's report, and any or all of the assessors' reports to ensure confidentiality of clinical information. The procedures will be subject to a formal evaluation beginning this autumn.

  Suicide Prevention
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he has given to NHS trusts on the surveillance policies they should operate for patients deemed to be a suicide risk.[46538]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Department has not given specific guidance to trusts on this issue but has published advice in the following documents: 'The Prevention of Suicide' and the Health Advisory Service manual 'Suicide Prevention—The Challenge Confronted', commissioned by the Department.

  Birth Weights
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what statistics his Department holds on the causes of low birth weight. [46990]

  Mr. Boateng
  There are a number of factors that may be associated with low birth weight. These include prematurity, foetal abnormality, multiple pregnancy, maternal health and nutritional status, maternal smoking or alcohol/drug misuse, geographical and social class associations. Additionally some ethnic groups have smaller babies irrespective of any other factors.

  The Department's statistical bulletin "NHS Maternity Statistics, England: 1989–90 to 1994–95", has statistics on birth weight in relation to gestational age.

  The Office for National Statistics publication "Mortality statistics—Childhood, infant and perinatal (1995 Series DH3/28)", has statistics on birth weight in relation to mother's country of birth, parity, marital status and father's social class.

  The Office for National Statistics publication "Infant and Perinatal Mortality 1997 (Monitor 98/1)", has statistics on birth weight by health authority.

  Copies of these publications are in the Library.

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research he has commissioned into the causes of low birth weight. [46989]

  Mr. Boateng
  The National Health Service Executive South Thames Regional Office is funding a project examining the relationship between maternal chronic periodontal disease and birth weight.

  The main agency through which the Government support bio-medical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council (MRC) which is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. The MRC has a portfolio of research into the causes of low birth weight.

  We are considering what further research into low birth weight may be required.

TREASURY

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what research has been undertaken to determine the consequences of the need for those
  395
  computer systems that are required to be euro compliant also to be millennium compliant; and if he will make a statement on the outcome. [43940]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Any systems that are date sensitive are required to be millennium compliant regardless of whether or not adaptations might be required for that system to deal with the introduction of the euro. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster carries out quarterly reviews across Government on the state of preparedness for the century date change. Copies of the returns from departments have been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what research the Government have carried out on the adequacy of the resources available within Government to tackle the millennium bug at the same time as reprogramming computers to deal with the introduction of the euro. [45454]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The United Kingdom will not be joining the single currency on 1 January 1999. The Millennium and the euro therefore have very different implications with regard to resources and timing. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster carries out quarterly reviews across Government on the state of preparedness for the century date change. Copies of the returns from departments have been placed in the Library.

  Charity Taxation Review
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to make an announcement about the Charity Taxation Review; and if he will make a statement. [44969]

  Dawn Primarolo
  We expect to publish a consultation document shortly.

  Small Businesses (VAT Arrears)
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy towards small businesses which are in arrears with VAT; and on what grounds he is prepared to accept a schedule of repayments. [45406]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Whenever businesses experience genuine short-term difficulties with their VAT, it is normal practice for Customs to encourage them to contact their local office with a view to agreeing settlements. Customs review each time-to-pay proposal on its merits but give careful consideration to any reasonable proposal for settlement. However, agreement to payment of a debt by instalments cannot be regarded in any way as a normal business expectation: Customs expect a business to explore alternative sources of finance first and to put forward realistic proposals for meeting their legal requirements.

  Diesel Duties
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from oil companies concerning duties on ultra-low sulphur diesel since his Budget on 17 March.[45299]
  396
  Dawn Primarolo
  Representations were received from three oil companies and one oil industry association concerning the changes to the ultra-low sulphur diesel (ULSD) definition in the Finance Bill. These representations concerned both the new definition of ULSD and the new restrictions on mixing of ULSD with conventional diesel after the duty point.

  The Government changed the definition of ULSD because the previous sole criteria of 50 ppm sulphur content did not produce sufficient emissions benefits to justify the duty incentive. The new definition produces more significant emissions benefits, mainly of particulates and nitrogen oxide, and the duty incentive of 2 pence per litre recognises that the new specification is more difficult to produce. The duty incentive is to increase to 3 pence per litre in the next Budget.

  The new mixing restrictions were introduced to prevent ULSD, which has had the benefit of the duty incentive, being mixed with conventional diesel after the duty point and then being sold as conventional diesel. These mixtures do not generate much by way of emissions gains in return for the duty incentive and +they do not encourage motorists to switch to the cleaner fuel. Similar provisions already existed to prevent mixing of different qualities of petrol.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Ms Stuart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what plans are in place to enable the self-employed to claim working families tax credit; [46265]

  (2) what arrangements have been made to enable the Inland Revenue to deal with the anticipated increased caseload in the wake of the introduction of working families tax credit. [46264]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue is leading a joint project team with Benefits Agency which is developing the detailed administrative arrangements for the WFTC. It is envisaged that the self employed will claim the WFTC in broadly the same way that they claim Family Credit currently.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of take-up rates for(a) the working families tax credit and (b) the childcare tax credit. [46460]

  Dawn Primarolo
  By 2001, about 1½ million working families will be receiving the Working Families Tax Credit, around 400,000 more than would have received Family Credit. The Government believe that, as a tax credit rather than a benefit, the WFTC will have a higher take-up rate than Family Credit.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of income is paid in income tax and national insurance, net of child benefit and family credit, in the current tax year by(a) a single person with no children, (b) a sole earner in a married two parent, two child family,

  397
  in each case on earnings of (i) half of average earnings, (ii) three quarters of average earnings, (iii) average earnings and (iv) twice average earnings. [46007]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The data requested are given in the table.

  Percentage of income paid in income tax and employee national insurance less child benefit and family credit at multiples of median full-time earnings of £337 per week (1998–99)

  Single person

  Married, sole earner 2 children

  50%

  17.4

  -21.1

  75%

  22.7

  20.5

  100%

  25.2

  23.6

  200%

  28.1

  27.3

  Notes:

  1. Income tax payments are calculated on the basis that the households receive no tax reliefs other than the standard allowances and only have income from employment. National insurance contributions are assumed to be Class 1 at the contracted-in rate

  2. A family with 2 children is assumed to have both children aged under 11

  Heavily Indebted Poor Countries
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate for each heavily indebted poor country of debt write off(a) in 1997–98 and (b) expected in the current year from (i) public and (ii) private sources; and if he will publish all the conditions attached to agreements to which the Government are party. [45382]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 15 June 1998]: (a) The table shows the value (in millions of pounds) of the principal of export credit loans to Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPCs) which has been written off by the UK government in 1997–98. The Government do not have figures for the debt write off granted by other governments.

  £million

  HIPC

  Debt relief granted by UK in 1997–8

  Ethiopia

  2.32

  Guyana

  72.25

  Mozambique

  0.79

  Niger

  0.13

  Tanzania

  0.76

  Togo

  0.49

  Zambia

  0.28

  Total

  77.02

  (b) (i) The value of debt relief to be granted to HIPCs in the current year depends on which countries successfully agree IMF programmes and the level of debt relief that is required to finance those programmes. It is likely that debt relief will be granted to at least Rwanda, Guinea-Bissau, Mali and Bolivia in the current year.

  (ii) The Government cannot estimate the debt relief likely to be granted to HIPCs by private sources. However, official creditors grant debt relief at the Paris Club on the assumption that private creditors will provide at least equivalent terms of debt relief.

  Public Records
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to amend the Public Records Act 1958 to allow free public access to the records of births, deaths and marriages.[46693]

  Mrs. Liddell
  None.

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate over the latest available period of the broad money growth(a) on average in the eleven countries which will join EMU and (b) in the United Kingdom. [46647]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Most recent data show that UK M4 grew by 9.1 per cent. in the year to May. The European Central Bank will be producing statistics for euro area monetary aggregates in due course.

  Budgets (Environmental Assessments)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to publish, in future Budgets, accounts including environmental factors; and if he will make a statement.[46398]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 18 June 1998]: I refer to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 22 April 1998, Official Report, column 624.

  Financial Supervision
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the regulatory framework for the supervision of financial institutions in each of the Crown dependencies. [46493]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have been asked to reply.

  A review of the financial legislation and regulatory systems in the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man is currently taking place. The review is being conducted by Mr. Andrew Edwards, formerly of Her Majesty's Treasury. His report is expected later this year.

  Indonesia
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer to the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) on 9 June 1998,Official Report, columns 494–95, on the value of aid loans written off since 1979, if he will list the loans written off for Indonesia, in each case stating (a) the nature of the project, (b) the date on which the loan was written off and (c) the reason for the write-off. [46128]

  Clare Short
  I have been asked to reply. The balances of all existing Indonesian loans were written off on 11 July 1979, and were waived in accordance with the statement on Retrospective Terms Adjustment (RTA)
  399
  made in the House of Commons on 31 July 1978, Official Report, column 25. Details of the individual loans are not available without incurring disproportionate costs.

SCOTLAND

  Further and Higher Education
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what factors underlay the requirements that(a) further education institutions should make efficiency savings of five per cent. and (b) higher education institutions should make efficiency savings of one per cent. [46138]

  Mr. Wilson
  Targets for efficiency savings have not been set centrally for the further education institutions separately or for the sector as a whole.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will conduct an investigation of the successes and failures of the Private Finance Initiative in further education; and what plans he has for the capital funding of further education over the next three years. [46137]

  Mr. Wilson
  A national review of the Private Finance Initiative was conducted a year ago and was followed by the introduction of a range of improvements in its operation. The progress of the Private Finance Initiative continues to be kept under general review, but my right hon. Friend has no plans at this stage to initiate another investigation, either of the Private Finance Initiative per se or focused specifically on Further Education, where experience of the Private Finance Initiative so far is limited.

  Capital funding of Further Education in future years is being considered as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review.

  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what net change the introduction of fees will make in the funding of Scottish higher and further education institutions in total and individually in(a) 1998–99, (b) 1999–2000, (c) 2000–1, and (d) 2001–2. [46244]

  Mr. Wilson
  Overall funding for higher education institutions, including tuition fees and grant allocations from the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council, is the same in 1998–99 as it was in 1997–98. Tuition fees received by higher and further education institutions in 1998–99 are not directly comparable with previous years because of the abolition of banded fees for full-time education undergraduate courses. The level of funding allocated to higher education institutions in 1998–99, individually and in total, is contained in the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council's grant letters, copies of which I have placed in the House of Commons Library. The estimated net change in respect of further education colleges for 1998–99 is a £5 million increase in available funds, falling to individual colleges according to their share of full-time higher education courses.

  Funding for higher and further education institutions for years 1999–2000 and beyond has not yet been determined and is a matter for the Comprehensive Spending Review.

  Primary Schools
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many and what percentage of primary school children were in classes of 31 or more in 1997(a) in each authority and (b) in Scotland as a whole. [45971]

  Mr. Wilson
  The information requested is as follows:

  Education authority primary schools in Scotland, September 1997—number and percentage of pupils in mainstream classes of 31 or over1

  Number of pupils in classes of 31 pupils or over

  Number of pupils in classes of 31 pupils or over as a percentage of all primary pupils

  Scotland

  85,793

  19.5

  Aberdeen City

  3,767

  23.8

  Aberdeenshire

  2,222

  10.4

  Angus

  1,429

  15.3

  Argyll and Bute

  1,215

  15.6

  Clackmannanshire

  780

  17.2

  Dumfries and Galloway

  2,381

  18.5

  Dundee City

  3,583

  29.2

  East Ayrshire

  1,926

  16.9

  East Dunbartonshire

  2,873

  27.0

  East Lothian

  1,026

  12.9

  East Renfrewshire

  3,444

  40.1

  Edinburgh, City of

  8,713

  28.5

  Eilean Siar

  0

  0.0

  Falkirk

  3,432

  27.9

  Fife

  4,050

  13.2

  Glasgow City

  9,551

  19.5

  Highland

  1.818

  9.5

  Inverclyde

  1,331

  17.0

  Midlothian

  1,462

  19.7

  Moray

  1,363

  16.9

  North Ayrshire

  2,563

  20.3

  North Lanarkshire

  5,330

  17.9

  Orkney Islands

  32

  1.7

  Perth and Kinross

  1,856

  17.2

  Renfrewshire

  4,786

  30.3

  Scottish Borders

  889

  10.0

  Shetland Islands

  0

  0.0

  South Ayrshire

  2,771

  29.2

  South Lanarkshire

  4,329

  16.1

  Stirling

  630

  9.2

  West Dunbartonshire

  1,589

  17.9

  West Lothian

  4,652

  31.4

  1Provisional

  Source:

  School Census

  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what(a) number and (b) percentage of children in primary one and two were in classes of 31 or more in 1997 (i) in each authority and (ii) in Scotland as a whole. [45968]
  401
  Mr. Wilson
  The information requested is as follows:

  Education authority primary schools in Scotland, September 1997—number and percentage of P1 and P2 pupils in mainstream single stage classes of 31 or more pupils by Education Authority1

  Number of P1 and P2 pupils in single stage classes of 31 or more pupils

  P1 and P2 pupils in single stage classes of 31pupils or more as percentage of the total number of pupils in P1 and P2 single stage classes

  Scotland

  21,276

  20.7

  Aberdeen City

  673

  15.8

  Aberdeenshire

  286

  7.1

  Angus

  317

  15.6

  Argyll and Bute

  189

  14.8

  Clackmannanshire

  97

  7.9

  Dumfries and Galloway

  549

  27.9

  Dundee City

  1,129

  34.2

  East Ayrshire

  351

  12.6

  East Dunbartonshire

  766

  28.0

  East Lothian

  319

  15.5

  East Renfrewshire

  1,016

  43.5

  Edinburgh, City of

  2,889

  34.3

  Eilean Siar

  0

  0.0

  Falkirk

  1,123

  36.4

  Fife

  473

  7.1

  Glasgow City

  2,544

  20.4

  Highland

  391

  11.7

  Inverclyde

  352

  17.0

  Midlothian

  258

  14.0

  Moray

  255

  13.5

  North Ayrshire

  603

  19.0

  North Lanarkshire

  1,295

  18.5

  Orkney Islands

  0

  0.0

  Perth and Kinross

  574

  25.7

  Renfrewshire

  1,339

  33.4

  Scottish Borders

  287

  17.0

  Shetland Islands

  0

  0.0

  South Ayrshire

  515

  22.4

  South Lanarkshire

  766

  12.2

  Stirling

  188

  12.0

  West Dunbartonshire

  507

  23.8

  West Lothian

  1,225

  32.2

  1Provisional

  Source:

  School Census

  Autistic Children
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what arrangements are in place to assist autistic children in Scotland; and what further proposals he has for autistic children.[46242]

  Mr. Wilson
  Local authorities have a statutory duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in need by providing a range and level of services appropriate to the children's needs. They are also under a statutory duty to assess the needs of individual children with a disability when requested to do so by a child's parent and any services provided should be designed to give such children the opportunity to lead lives which are as normal as possible.
  402
  Local authorities also have a statutory duty to secure the adequate and efficient provision of education for the children in their respective areas. The means by which any particular authority choose to provide for their area and the nature of educational provision deemed suitable for any particular child, including a child with autism. is a matter for them to decide in the first instance.

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people applied for B.Ed. teacher training courses in Scotland in each year from 1993 to 1997, broken down by country of origin of application. [45970]

  Mr. Wilson
  Information on domicile of applicants to BEd teacher training courses is not held centrally. The information which is available is given in the table:

  Applications to BEd teacher education courses in Scotland,1993–1997 by sector of teaching

  Year

  Primary

  Secondary

  Total

  1993–94

  3,234

  1,035

  4,269

  1994–95

  3,417

  1,108

  4,525

  1995–961

  7,581

  1,682

  9,263

  1996–971

  6,007

  1,423

  7,430

  1997–981

  5,801

  1,284

  7,085

  1 From 1995–96, BEd applications come through UCAS. Under these new arrangements, all applications are counted in the figures, rather than just an applicants first choice

  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people applied for post-graduate teacher training in Scotland in each year from 1993 to 1997 broken down(a) by sector of application, primary and secondary, and (b) by country of origin of application. [45969]

  Mr. Wilson
  Information on domicile of applicants to postgraduate teacher training is not held centrally. Information on applicants by sector of application is given in the table:

  Applications to postgraduate teacher education courses in Scotland, 1993–1997 by sector of teaching

  Year

  Primary

  Secondary

  Total

  1993–94

  1,627

  3,325

  4,952

  1994–95

  1,730

  3,472

  5,202

  1995–96

  1,800

  3,201

  5,001

  1996–97

  1,748

  2,716

  4,464

  1997–98

  1,586

  2,659

  4,245

  Cardonald College
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage increase or decrease the allocation of grants to Cardonald College for the current financial year represents(a) in cash terms and (b) in real terms allowing for inflation and pay awards. [46243]

  Mr. Wilson
  Total Government grant-in-aid to Cardonald College in 1998–99 amounts to £6,787,000, compared with £6,505,300 in 1997–98. This represents an increase of 4.33 per cent. in cash terms or 1.39 per cent. in real terms, allowing for inflation.

  Decisions on pay awards to college staff are a matter for the college's Board of Management.

  Voluntary Organisations
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list by district council the percentage of each district council budget in Scotland allocated to voluntary organisations for each financial year since 1992–93. [46228]

  Mr. Macdonald
  [holding answer 18 June 1998]: The table shows net grants and payments to voluntary bodies, as reported by each district council expressed as a percentage of total net expenditure.

  Net grants and payments to voluntary organisations as a percentage of total net expenditure 3,4

  Percentage of net grants and payments to voluntary organisations of total net expenditure within financial Year

  District council

  11992–93

  1993–94

  21994–95

  1995–96

  Berwickshire

  2.4

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  0.2

  1.6

  2.1

  1.9

  Roxburgh

  1.5

  1.5

  1.5

  1.7

  Tweeddale

  1.4

  1.4

  2.3

  2.0

  Clackmannan

  1.3

  1.3

  1.4

  1.2

  Falkirk

  0.6

  2.0

  2.8

  0.8

  Stirling

  0.3

  5.6

  3.7

  3.6

  Annandale and Eskdale

  1.1

  1.6

  1.5

  0.6

  Nithsdale

  1.9

  3.0

  1.6

  1.6

  Stewartry

  0.8

  5.0

  9.6

  13.5

  Wigtown

  2.2

  1.4

  3.2

  2.9

  Dunfermline

  1.2

  0.0

  2.7

  2.3

  Kirkcaldy

  0.0

  1.9

  2.2

  2.1

  North East Fife

  0.4

  2.3

  2.9

  4.8

  Aberdeen

  3.9

  4.9

  0.1

  0.1

  Banff and Buchan

  0.5

  1.7

  0.0

  5.0

  Gordon

  1.1

  1.2

  8.5

  0.4

  Kincardine and Deeside

  1.6

  1.4

  1.2

  3.4

  Moray

  1.7

  0.0

  1.3

  1.0

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  0.9

  2.3

  16.2

  13.0

  Caithness

  0.4

  0.4

  0.6

  0.4

  Inverness

  0.8

  1.3

  1.0

  0.8

  Lochaber

  0.6

  4.2

  2.8

  5.1

  Nairn

  0.0

  1.5

  0.0

  1.9

  Ross and Cromarty

  7.6

  4.7

  4.7

  3.2

  Skye and Lochalsh

  1.9

  3.6

  4.2

  3.4

  Sutherland

  2.7

  3.8

  3.2

  3.0

  East Lothian

  3.4

  2.0

  7.0

  5.5

  Edinburgh

  4.2

  4.4

  6.1

  8.9

  Midlothian

  1.8

  1.5

  1.8

  1.5

  West Lothian

  0.0

  1.5

  1.9

  2.4

  Argyll and Bute

  0.7

  1.3

  1.8

  2.8

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  0.9

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Clydebank

  1.5

  0.0

  1.1

  0.5

  Clydesdale

  0.5

  0.5

  0.6

  0.6

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  2.2

  2.1

  0.0

  1.8

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  0.6

  1.8

  3.2

  3.2

  Cunninghame

  0.6

  1.0

  1.7

  1.7

  Dumbarton

  1.0

  1.6

  2.0

  2.1

  East Kilbride

  1.2

  1.0

  1.2

  0.8

  Eastwood

  0.0

  0.1

  0.1

  0.0

  Glasgow

  0.7

  1.1

  0.0

  5.8

  Hamilton

  0.1

  0.1

  0.2

  0.2

  Inverclyde

  0.7

  0.0

  0.8

  0.9

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  0.0

  0.0

  0.7

  0.6

  Kyle and Carrick

  0.4

  0.7

  0.6

  0.3

  Monklands

  0.0

  1.4

  1.4

  1.9

  Motherwell

  0.4

  0.4

  0.7

  0.7

  Renfrew

  0.6

  0.7

  0.0

  0.9

  Strathkelvin

  1.0

  1.2

  0.0

  1.0

  404

  Net grants and payments to voluntary organisations as a percentage of total net expenditure3,4

  Percentage of net grants and payments to voluntary organisations of total net expenditure within financial Year

  District council

  11992–93

  1993–94

  21994–95

  1995–96

  Angus

  0.7

  0.7

  0.8

  0.7

  Dundee

  0.7

  0.0

  1.9

  1.5

  Perth and Kinross

  16.1

  0.0

  10.4

  13.8

  1Excludes Kirkcaldy

  2Excludes Cumbernauld and Kilsyth and Glasgow

  3 In providing information on grants and payments to voluntary bodies, authorities were asked to include only financial assistance and to exclude estimates of the worth of payments in kind

  4Net expenditure excludes any expenditure offset by grants or payments received by authorities from any other source

  Source:

  Local Financial Returns (LFR 10) and Final Outturn Return (FO) 1992–93 to 1995–96

SOCIAL SECURITY

  State Pension
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the cost of the administration of contribution records in order to determine basic state pension entitlement in the last year for which figures are available. [46962]

  Mr. Denham
  There are 47 million active National Insurance Accounts that are maintained to enable determination of future benefit entitlement, including the State Retirement Pension. It is not possible to breakdown the overall cost of records maintenance in relation to a specific benefit.

  The overall cost of record maintenance for 1997/98 was £48,659,344 (a unit cost of £1·04).

  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what discussions she has had since 1 May 1997 regarding means-testing of the basic state pension. [46004]

  Mr. Denham
  All discussions on the basic State pension have taken as their starting point our manifesto commitment to maintain the basic State pension as the foundation of pension provision and to uprate it at least in line with prices. We will honour that commitment.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is(a) the total cost to the Exchequer and (b) the cost per recipient of administering housing benefit. [46953]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The amount of Central Government subsidy paid to local authorities for administering Housing benefit in 1996/97 was £185 million. Administration costs quoted by local authorities in the same year were £312 million, giving an average weekly cost per beneficiary of £1.25. Related Department of Social Security administration costs are not available separately since they form part of the cost of administering Income Support.

  Source:

  Government Expenditure Plans 1998/99.
  405
  Mr. Roy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will publish for each Scottish local authority for each of the last two years, the number of housing benefit overpayments and the number and percentage of those which were fraudulent errors. [45267]

  Mr. Field
  Information for 1996/97, the first year of Scottish local government reorganisation, is set out in the table. Information for 1997/98 is not yet available.

  Housing Benefit overpayments and number and percentage which were fraudulent—Scottish Local Authorities 1996/97

  Fraudulent overpayments

  Local authority

  Total overpayments

  Numbers

  Percentage

  Aberdeen

  12,916

  122

  0.9

  Aberdeenshire

  2,736

  49

  1.8

  Angus

  848

  67

  7.9

  Argyll-Bute

  2,292

  1,271

  55.4

  Clackmannanshire

  1,991

  24

  1.2

  Dumfries and Galloway

  4,552

  276

  6.1

  Dundee

  10,061

  821

  8.2

  East Ayrshire

  3,213

  116

  3.6

  East Dunbartonshire

  721

  4

  0.5

  East Lothian

  2,063

  82

  4.0

  East Renfrewshire

  326

  39

  12.0

  Edinburgh

  42,129

  790

  1.9

  Falkirk

  15,604

  198

  1.3

  Fife

  15,550

  317

  2.0

  Glasgow

  49,489

  335

  0.7

  Highland

  7,440

  234

  3.1

  Inverclyde

  1,612

  34

  2.1

  Midlothian

  3,464

  77

  2.2

  Moray

  4,901

  297

  6.1

  North Ayrshire

  2,893

  0

  0.0

  North Lanarkshire

  15,525

  28

  0.2

  Orkney

  1,036

  45

  4.3

  Perth and Kinross

  2,372

  344

  14.5

  Renfrewshire

  3,092

  241

  7.8

  Scottish Borders

  3,899

  22

  0.6

  Shetland

  1,732

  90

  5.2

  South Ayrshire

  2,120

  300

  14.1

  South Lanarkshire1

  8,675

  33

  0.4

  Stirling

  4,179

  101

  2.4

  West Dunbartonshire

  3,508

  137

  4.0

  West Lothian

  4,242

  77

  1.8

  Western Isles

  980

  0

  0.0

  1Pre audit data only available for South Lanarkshire

  Note:

  Percentages rounded to nearest 0.1 per cent

  Source:

  1996/97 audited Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Subsidy claim

  Vaccine Damage (Compensation)
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many vaccine-damaged children have received a payment of £10,000 in compensation. [45131]

  Mr. Denham
  795 payments of £10,000 have been made since the scheme began. The amount increased to £20,000 for new claims on or after 16 August 1985, and 51 payments have been made at this rate. The current rate of £30,000 was introduced for new claims made on or after 15 April 1991, and so far 44 payments have been made at this rate. On 19 May 1998 it was announced that as soon as the necessary Parliamentary approval has been obtained the intention is to increase new awards to £40,000.
  406
  The payment is not compensation but is designed to ease the present and future burdens of those suffering from vaccine damage, and their families.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many special advisers, political advisers and other political appointees are working in her Department; at what annual cost to the public purse including recruitment costs, salaries, pensions and National Insurance contributions; and what was the position in the last full year of the last Government. [43317]

  Mr. Field
  For details of the numbers of Special Advisers and the annual cost of employing them, I refer the hon. Member to the Written Answer my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) on 11 June 1998,Official Report, column 664.

  National Insurance contributions are excluded from the figure but are paid under the same rules and at the same rates as for other civil servants. Information on the paybill costs for Special Advisers within individual Departments is not provided in order to protect the privacy of the individuals concerned.

  Information on the costs of employing Special Advisers in previous years was given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) on 25 November 1997, Official Report, columns 472–73.

  Attendance Allowance
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to amend the Social Security Attendance Allowance Regulations 1991, to allow attendance allowance to be paid to people paying the full cost of their care in local authority homes; and if she will make a statement. [45276]

  Mr. Denham
  There are currently no plans to change the rules relating to the payment of Attendance Allowance to people being cared for in local authority homes.

  Benefit Expenditure
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the amount in billions of pounds at 1997–98 prices, of social security benefit spending from 1979–80 to 1997–98, broken down into the client groups(a) elderly people, including pensions, (b) the sick and disabled, not including pensioners, (c) family support, (d) unemployment and (e) widows. [45424]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is set out in the table.
  407

  Social Security spending 1997–98 prices

  £billion

  Elderly people

  Sick and disabled

  Family

  Unemployed people

  Widows and others

  Total

  1979–80

  27.5

  7.5

  9.9

  3.9

  2.1

  50.9

  1980–81

  27.8

  7.3

  9.3

  5.6

  2.0

  51.9

  1981–82

  30.0

  7.8

  10.2

  7.9

  2.0

  57.9

  1982–83

  31.4

  8.1

  10.9

  9.3

  2.0

  61.7

  1983–84

  32.5

  9.2

  11.7

  10.4

  2.0

  65.9

  1984–85

  32.9

  9.8

  12.1

  11.0

  2.0

  67.8

  1985–86

  34.0

  10.3

  12.4

  11.4

  2.0

  70.2

  1986–87

  35.4

  11.5

  12.7

  11.7

  2.0

  73.4

  1987–88

  35.5

  12.1

  12.6

  10.2

  2.0

  72.4

  1988–89

  34.4

  12.5

  12.3

  7.8

  1.8

  68.8

  1989–90

  34.9

  13.3

  12.1

  6.1

  1.8

  68.2

  1990–91

  35.8

  14.1

  12.5

  6.7

  2.0

  71.1

  1991–92

  37.6

  16.0

  13.7

  9.0

  2.2

  78.5

  1992–93

  38.7

  18.3

  15.8

  10.6

  2.1

  85.5

  1993–94

  40.3

  21.1

  16.7

  10.8

  2.0

  90.9

  1994–95

  40.6

  22.1

  17.5

  9.9

  2.0

  92.2

  1995–96

  41.0

  23.3

  18.2

  9.1

  2.2

  93.8

  1996–97

  42.1

  24.2

  18.7

  7.8

  2.1

  94.8

  1997–98

  42.8

  24.4

  18.7

  6.1

  2.1

  94.1

  Note:
  The client group names are general descriptions of broad areas of benefit expenditure. Expenditure is broadly classified according to the main reason a benefit is paid. For example, Attendance Allowance paid to an elderly person is allocated to the sick and disabled group rather than to the elderly group.

  Source:

  The 1998 Departmental Report and earlier equivalents.

  Disallowed Benefits
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of claims for(a) extended council tax benefit and (b) child maintenance bonus have been disallowed for being submitted out of time in the current year. [45477]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The information on extended payments is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table. The information for 1997–98 will not be available until July 1998.

  Regular payments of maintenance can transform the lives of lone mothers and their children, providing a stable income that can help them off Income Support and into work. In the current financial year to date, 9.8 per cent. of Child Maintenance Bonus claims have been disallowed for being submitted out of time.

  Council tax benefit extended payments—Great Britain 1996–97

  Extended payments

  Total extended payments applications

  102,000

  Total successful applications

  85,000

  Percentage of successful applications

  83 per cent.

  Notes:

  1. Figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand

  2. Figures refer to a benefit unit which may be a single person or a couple

  3. Extended Payment figures are given as a total of 1996–97

  Source:
  Local Authority Benefit and Council Tax Benefit quarterly Administration data returns April 1996 to March 1997

  Child Maintenance Bonus

  Source:
  Monthly Income Support and Jobseeker's Allowance Management Information Statistics Reports. Figures quoted are for April and May 1998.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Attorney-General, pursuant to the answer of 28 April 1998,Official Report, column 65–67, if he will list the cost to public funds of each of the top 20 banisters' earnings from prosecution work. [46588]

  The Attorney-General
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Roger Levitt Case (Costs)
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Attorney-General, pursuant to the answer given by Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department on 19 May 1998,Official Report, column 342, on the Roger Levitt case costs, how many prosecution preparation hours were claimed; and how they were assessed. [46590]

  The Attorney-General
  Fees paid to the three prosecuting counsel briefed by the Serious Fraud Office in the case of Roger Levitt were assessed by a combination of hourly and daily rates. The records necessary to ascertain the exact number of hours claimed in preparation cannot be accessed save at disproportionate cost, but I refer my hon. Friend to the answer of 28 June 1995,Official Report, columns 702–03, given by the then Attorney-General to my hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien) which shows the fees paid to counsel and sets out the hourly and daily rates.

  Prosecution Counsel
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Attorney-General what records his Department collates on the amounts prosecution counsel are paid from public funds. [46589]
  409
  The Attorney-General
  The two relevant Departments for which hold ministerial responsibility are the Crown Prosecution Service and the Serious Fraud Office.

  The CPS holds management information centrally which analyses the payments made to external advocates, whether banisters or solicitors, by class of case, type of proceedings, classification of counsel, and other similar categorisations. In addition, the CPS accounting system records payments made to individuals. No collation of CPS payments with those made by other prosecuting agencies from public funds is performed.

  The SFO records payments to counsel on individual case files. This information is not collated.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Scottish Universities (Students from Cumbria)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many students from Cumbria currently attend Scottish universities. [45678]

  Accepted home applicants through UCAS to undergraduate degree courses; by age and socio-economic group, Autumn 1995 and 1997

  1995

  1997

  Under 21 years

  Over 21 years

  Under 21 years

  Over 21 years

  Socio-economic group by age group

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  A Professional

  31,287

  17

  5,326

  10

  35,026

  16

  2,732

  5

  B Intermediate

  78,131

  42

  17,298

  31

  92,944

  43

  16,076

  27

  C1 Skilled non-manual

  20,287

  11

  6,605

  12

  23,839

  11

  10,249

  17

  C2 Skilled manual

  28,071

  15

  9,521

  17

  32,714

  15

  6,982

  12

  D Partly skilled

  12,622

  7

  4,775

  9

  14,862

  7

  5,989

  10

  E Unskilled

  2,950

  2

  1,396

  3

  3,767

  2

  1,128

  2

  Not known

  11,377

  6

  10,524

  19

  14,565

  7

  15,630

  27

  Total

  185,265

  100

  55,445

  100

  217.717

  100

  58,786

  100

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 27 March 1998,Official Report, column 342, when he expects the Higher Education Statistics Agency to analyse the information it collects on the home postcode of higher education students; and what form the analysis will take. [45782]

  Dr. Howells
  The Higher Education Statistics Agency is an independent body. It has in the past used postcode information to analyse student numbers at region and county/unitary authority level but it has no current plans to carry out any analysis based on parliamentary constituency. The Higher Education Funding Council for England is, however, carrying out an analysis of entrants to higher education using postcode information and will report in due course.

  School Inspections
  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if he will make a statement on the procedure for dealing with complaints from schools regarding(a) Ofsted inspections, and (b) individual Ofsted inspectors; [45704]
  410
  Dr. Howells
  Data from the Higher Education Statistics Agency for the academic year 1997–98 showed that there were 607 students from Cumbria studying in higher education institutions in Scotland, of whom 496 were on full-time undergraduate courses.

  Further and Higher Education Statistics
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list by socio-economic group(a) the numbers and (b) the percentages of (i) under 21 and (ii) over 21 year olds who were accepted into full-time or sandwich undergraduate study in (1) 1995 and (2) the most recent year for which figures are available. [45749]

  Dr. Howells
  The available data on students accepted into full-time and sandwich undergraduate courses by socio-economic group are provided in the table. It shows the number of accepted applicants to full-time and sandwich courses in 1995 and 1997 who applied through the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS). However, not all full-time and sandwich undergraduate students enter higher education through UCAS. Information on the socio-economic groups of students who did not apply through UCAS is currently unavailable.

  (2) how many Ofsted inspections were carried out during the last period for which figures are available; and how many complaints were received from schools or governing bodies regarding Ofsted inspections or inspectors in that period; [45705]

  (3) what procedures exist for monitoring the performance of (a) Ofsted inspection terms and (b) individual inspectors. [45706]

  Mr. Byers
  HM Chief Inspector of Schools is responsible for monitoring the performance of school inspectors and handling complaints arising from school inspections. We announced on 10 March that Ofsted's complaints procedures are being strengthened, including the introduction of an independent element through the appointment of an external complaints adjudicator. I have asked the Chief Inspector to write to my hon. Friend and to place a copy of his letter in the Library.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the average length of time taken to statement a child, and how many statements are currently outstanding in each local education authority. [46438]
  411
  Ms Estelle Morris
  Information is not available in the form requested. Figures published by the Audit Commission this year showed that in 1996–97 48 per cent. of draft statements were served on parents by LEAs within the statutory 18 week time-limit. This level of performance is unacceptable, and the Department has asked LEAs with poor records what action they propose to take to improve.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when the National Advisory Group on Special Educational Needs first met to consider the results of the consultation on the Green Paper, "Excellence for All Children". [46668]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 19 June 1998]: Consultation on the Green Paper closed formally on 9 January 1998, although responses continued to be received until March. The National Advisory Group considered a preliminary analysis of the responses on 11 February, and met again to consider a full assessment on 29 April.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidance his Department has issued to local education authorities on the needs of children with ADD/ADHD.[46428]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Department has not issued guidance on attention deficit disorder/attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADD/ADHD). Identifying and meeting children's special educational needs, including needs which arise from ADD/ADHD, is a matter for local education authorities and schools, having regard to the Department'sCode of Practice on the Identification and Assessment of Special Educational Needs. Together with the Department of Health, we are considering how best to disseminate factual information on ADD/ADHD and to make available information on good practice in meeting the educational needs of children with this disorder.

  Disabled Access Symbols
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will take steps to promote the(a) standardisation and (b) greater use of readily understandable iconic symbols denoting accessible facilities for people with different disabilities. [46506]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The British Standards Institution's sub-committee on disabled people (B/209/8) is, at present, developing proposals for a new British Standard covering access for disabled people. I understand that, as part of its remit, the sub-committee will be considering guidance on the provision of the international symbol for access and signs for help for hearing impaired people and partially sighted people. This Department, along with several others, is represented on the sub-committee.

  Remploy
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he proposes to appoint a disabled person to the Board of the Remploy Group; and if he will make a statement. [46751]
  412
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to appoint to the board of Remploy people with disabilities. [46995]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  An advertisement was recently placed in Disability Times seeking a non-executive director for Remploy who has personal experience of disability and can contribute to the commercial development and overall good governance of the company. It made clear that applications from people with disabilities would be particularly welcome.

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what has been the Government subsidy to Remploy for each of the past 10 years expressed(a) in cash terms and (b) at April 1998 prices. [46993]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The table shows Remploy's grant over the last 10 years in(a) cash prices and (b) April 1998 prices.

  £ million

  Year

  (a) cash prices

  (b) April 1998 prices

  1997–98

  94.2

  96.5

  1996–97

  94.2

  99.7

  1995–96

  94.2

  102.0

  1994–95

  92.1

  102.3

  1993–94

  89.2

  100.9

  1992–93

  84.0

  97.7

  1991–92

  75.3

  91.2

  1990–91

  72.0

  92.8

  1989–90

  67.0

  93.1

  1988–89

  62.7

  93.3

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what has been the ratio of able bodied to disabled workers at Remploy for each of the last five years. [46992]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The table shows both the number of disabled employees at Remploy and that the proportion of the total workforce who are disabled has increased over the past five years:

  Year

  Total workers(disabled and non-disabled)

  Number of disabled workers

  Number of non-disabled workers

  Ratio of non-disabled to disabled

  1993–94

  10,229

  8,654

  1,575

  1 to 5.5

  1994–95

  10,538

  8,906

  1,632

  1 to 5.5

  1995–96

  10,893

  9,334

  1,559

  1 to 6

  1996–97

  11,224

  9,662

  1,562

  I to 6.2

  1997–98

  11,351

  10,021

  1,330

  1 to 7.5

  Education Action Zones
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he will announce the 25 successful applications for education action zones. [47335]
  413
  Mr. Byers
  Tomorrow. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will place the relevant details in the Library.

  Further Education (East Sussex)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on his Department's plans for the further education sector in East Sussex. [43781]

  Dr. Howells
  [Pursuant to his reply, 11 June 1998, Official Report, c. 694]: The reply should have been as follows:

  I have no specific plans for the further education sector in East Sussex.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Bees
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 9 June 1998,Official Report, column 530, what has been the cost to his Department of research into bee disease in each year since 1990. [46093]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information requested is set out in the table. The figure for 1990–91 is not readily available.

  AFP No.

  Spices

  Earliest sowing dates of DUS tests and VCD trials

  Current status of tests and trials

  Responsible organisation for tests and trials

  45/798

  Sugar beet

  17 March 1998

  Ongoing

  NIAB—DUS

  NIAB and BSBSPA—VCU

  45/822

  Sugar beet

  17 March 1998

  Ongoing

  NIAB—DUS

  NIAB and BSBSPA—VCU

  45/813

  Sugar beet

  17 March 1998

  Ongoing

  NIAB—DUS

  NIAB and BSBSPA—VCU

  45/774

  Sugar beet

  17 March 1997

  Ongoing

  NIAB—DUS

  NIAB and BSBSPA—VCU

  45/749

  Sugar beet

  17 March 1997

  Ongoing

  NIAB—DUS

  NIAB and BSBSPA—VCU

  51/833

  Maize

  3 May 1998

  Ongoing

  DUS tested by French authorities

  NIAB and BSPB—VCU

  35/959

  Spring oilseed rape

  27 March 1996

  Completed January 19822

  NIAB—DUS

  NIAB and SAC—VCU

  35/960

  Spring oilseed rape

  27 March 1996

  Completed January 19982

  NIAB—DUS

  NIAB and SAC—VCU

  35/1016

  Winter oilseed rape

  26 August 1996

  Ongoing

  NIAB—DUS

  NIAB and BSPB—VCU

  35/1062

  Winter oilseed rape

  26 August 1996

  Ongoing

  NIAB—DUS

  NIAB and BSPB—VCU

  35/1174

  Winter oilseed rape

  29 August 1997

  Ongoing

  NIAB—DUS

  NIAB and BSPB—VCU

  35/1175

  Winter oilseed rape

  29 August 1997

  Ongoing

  NIAB—DUS

  NIAB and BSPB—VCU

  35/1176

  Winter oilseed rape

  29 August 1997

  Ongoing

  NIAB—DUS

  NIAB and BSPB—VCU

  35/1184

  Winter oilseed rape

  29 August 1997

  Ongoing

  NIAB—DUS

  NIAB and BSPB—VCU

  35/1185

  Winter oilseed rape

  29 August 1997

  Ongoing

  NIAB—DUS

  35/1205

  Spring oilseed rape

  24 March 1998

  Ongoing

  NIAB—DUS

  NIAB and SAC—VCU

  35/1206

  Spring oilseed rape

  24 March 1998

  Ongoing

  NIAB—DUS

  NIAB and SAC—VCU

  35/1210

  Spring oilseed rape

  24 March 1998

  Ongoing

  NIAB—DUS

  NIAB and SAC—VCU

  414

  Year

  £000

  1991–92

  20

  1992–93

  61

  1993–94

  140

  1994–95

  314

  1995–96

  259

  1996–97

  203

  1997–98

  215

  1998–99

  215

  Seed Listings
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 21 May 1998,Official Report, column 483, if he will indicate whether any tests and trials are being or have been conducted in respect of each of the national seed list applications under Regulation 11(1) of the Seeds (National Lists of Varieties) Regulations 1982, indicating the names of the persons conducting the tests and the dates thereof. [46209]

  Mr. Rooker
  National List tests to establish distinctness, uniformity and stability (DUS) and trials for value, cultivation and use (VCU) have been or are being carried out as shown. For reasons of personal confidentiality, only the corporate identities of trialling agents is released into the public domain.
  415

  AFP No.

  Spices

  Earliest sowing dates of DUS tests and VCU trials

  Current status of tests and trials

  Responsible organisation for tests and trials

  35/1211

  Spring oilseed rape

  24 March 1998

  Ongoing

  NIAB—DUS

  NIAB and SAC—VCU

  35/1222

  Spring oilseed rape

  8 April 1998

  Ongoing

  NIAB—DUS; not sown1

  NIAB and SAC—VCU

  1DUS test plots were not sown for this variety as a Deliberate Release Consent was not granted until 1 April 1998. The variety has been sown in 1998 VCU trials only

  2 A proposed decision on whether these varieties should be added to the UK National List will not be taken until the necessary marketing consent has been promulgated by the French Competent Authority to whom the marketing application under Council Directive 90/220/EEC was submitted

  Notes:

  DUS: Tests to establish Distinctness, Uniformity and Stability

  VCU: Trials to establish Value for Cultivation and Use in the UK

  NIAB: National Institute of Agricultural Botany, Cambridge

  SAC: Scottish Agricultural College, Aberdeen

  BSBSPA: British Sugar Beet Seed Producers Association

  BSPB: British Society of Plant Breeders

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 14 May 1998,Official Report, column 200, for what reasons he will not make available to the public the results which are held by him of seed tests and trials to establish value for cultivation and use until a proposed decision on whether the seeds should be added to the national list has been published in the "Plant Varieties and Seeds Gazette".[46205]

  Mr. Rooker
  Proposed decisions about addition to the national list are published after careful consideration of the data resulting from tests and trials, and subject to the necessary marketing consent being in place under directive 90/220/EEC. Addition to the national list is a statutory pre-requisite to marketing, and it is only when proposed decisions are published that the formal representations procedures at sections 21 and 22 of the Seeds (National Lists of Varieties) Regulations 1982 (as amended) apply. Any person with a sufficient interest can obtain the results of tests and trials when considering whether to make representations against proposed decisions.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 14 May 1998,Official Report, column 198, if he will list the agricultural species which are not trialled or tested for national list purposes to establish whether they have value for cultivation and use. [46204]

  Mr. Rooker
  Schedule I, Part 1 of the Seeds (National Lists of Varieties) Regulations 1982 (as amended) lists the agricultural species that are subject to national list tests and trials, and the common names of these species are given in the following schedule for information. Schedule 2, Section 5, of the same regulations exempts varieties of grasses not intended for fodder production, and any variety intended for ultimate sale in a Member State which has already accepted it for value for cultivation and use (VCU) purposes, from the VCU requirements that are specified at Schedule 2. Tests and trials and addition to the UK National List are not a requirement for varieties of species that are not subject to the National List regulations. But any genetically
  416
  modified varieties falling into these latter categories would still require a marketing consent under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 which implements Directive 90/220/EEC.

  The Seeds (National Lists of Varieties) Regulations 1982 (as amended) Schedule 1—Common names of agricultural plant species

  Species

  Common name

  Cereals

  Oat; barley; rye; triticale; wheat; durum wheat; spelt wheat; maize (except for sweetcorn)

  Potatoes

  Potato

  Beet

  Sugar beet; fodder beet; mangels

  Fodder plants

  (a)grasses

  Velvet bent; red top; creeping bent; brown top; tall oatgrass; rescue grass; alaska brome grass; cocksfoot; tall fescue; sheeps/hard/fine leaved sheeps fescue; meadow fescue; red fescue/chewings fescue; festulolium; westerwold ryegrass; Italian ryegrass; timothy; annual meadowgrass; wood meadowgrass; smooth stalked meadowgrass; roughstalked meadowgrass

  (b)legumes

  Birdsfoot trefoil; white lupin; blue lupin; yellow lupin; black medick; trefoil; lucerne; sainfoin; field pea; alsike clover; red clover; white clover; field bean; Hungarian vetch; common vetch; hairy vetch

  (c) other fodder plants

  Swede; fodder kale; fodder radish

  Oil and fibre plants

  Turnip rape; brown mustard; swede rape (including oilseed rape); black mustard; sunflower; linseed/flax; white mustard; soya bean

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 21 May 1998,Official Report, column 483, if he will list the dates of each of the applications for national seed testing and the approximate dates by which he expects to make a proposed decision. [46210]
  417
  Mr. Rooker
  The information requested is as follows:

  AFP number

  Spices

  National List (NL) applicant

  Date of NL application1

  Approximate date of proposed NL decision2

  45/798

  Sugar Beet

  Kleinwanzlebener Saatzucht AG., Germany

  31 December 1997

  April 2000

  45/822

  Sugar Beet

  Novartis Seeds AB., Sweden

  14 January 1998

  April 2000

  45/813

  Sugar Beet

  Danisco Seeds, UK

  14 January 1998

  April 2000

  45/774

  Sugar Beet

  Hilleshog AB.,

  15 January 1997

  April 1999

  45/749

  Sugar Beet

  Kleinwanzlebener Saatzucht AG., Germany

  7 January 1997

  April 1999

  51/833

  Maize

  Van der Have, Netherlands

  16 January 1998

  February 2000

  35/959

  Oilseed Rape

  Plant Genetic Systems Belgium

  14 December 1995

  November1998

  35/960

  Oilseed Rape

  Plant Genetic Systems Belgium

  14 December 1995

  November1998

  35/1016

  Oilseed Rape

  Deutsche Saatveredelung GmbH, Germany

  13 August 1996

  November1998

  35/1062

  Oilseed Rape

  Monsanto Crop Protection UK

  8 August 1996

  November1998

  35/1174

  Oilseed Rape

  Plant Genetic Systems Belgium

  28 August 1997

  November1999

  35/1175

  Oilseed Rape

  Plant Genetic Systems Belgium

  28 August 1997

  November1999

  35/1176

  Oilseed Rape

  Plant Genetic Systems Belgium

  28 August 1997

  November1999

  35/1184

  Oilseed Rape

  Monsanto Crop Protection, UK

  11 August 1996

  November1999

  35/1185

  Oilseed Rape

  Monsanto Crop Protection, UK

  11 August 1996

  November1999

  35/1205

  Oilseed Rape

  Calgene Inc., USA

  12 December 1997

  November 1999

  35/1206

  Oilseed Rape

  Calgene Inc., USA

  12 December 1997

  November 1999

  35/1210

  Oil seed Rape

  Plant Genetic Systems Belgium

  12 January 1998

  November1999

  35/1211

  Oilseed Rape

  Plant Genetic Systems Belgium

  12 January 1998

  November 1999

  35/1222

  Oilseed Rape

  Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc., USA

  16 December 1997

  November 1999

  1Date of receipt of a valid application

  2Subject to promulgation of marketing consents under Directive 90/220/EEC and satisfactory completion of tests and trials

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 21 May 1998, Official Report, column 483, if he will provide the corresponding genetically modified release consents in respect of each of the national seed list applications, indicating the application and consent numbers and dates and, if different from the national list applicants, the applicants' names. [46208]

  Application number

  Species

  National list applicant

  Release consent number; Date consent granted; Applicant for Consent

  45/798

  Sugar Beet

  Kleinwanzlebener Saatzucht AG., Germany

  97/RI9/13–17 March 1997 Agrevo UK Crop Protection Ltd.

  45/822

  Sugar Beet

  Novartis Seeds AB., Sweden

  96/R21/4–25 February 1997 Novartis Seeds Ltd.

  45/813

  Sugar Beet

  Danisco Seeds, UK

  96/R21/4–25 February 1997 Novartis Seeds Ltd.

  45/774

  Sugar Beet

  Hilleshog AB., Sweden

  96/R21/4–25 February 1997 Novartis Seeds Ltd.

  45/749

  Sugar Beet

  Kleinwanzlebener Saatzucht AG., Germany

  97/R19/13–17 March 1997 Agrevo UK Crop Protection Ltd.

  51/833

  Maize

  Van der Have, Netherlands

  96/R13/6–2 April 1996 Sharpes International Seeds Ltd.

  35/959

  Oilseed Rape

  Plant Genetic Systems N.V., Belgium

  95/R15/15–3 January 1996 Plant Genetic Systems N.V., Belgium

  35/960

  Oilseed Rape

  Plant Genetic Systems N.V., Belgium

  95/R15/15–3 January 1996 Plant Genetic Systems N.V., Belgium

  35/1016

  Oilseed Rape

  Deutsche Saatveredelung GmbH, Germany

  96/R27/1–6 August 1996 Perryfields Holdings Ltd.

  35/1062

  Oilseed Rape

  Monsanto Crop Protection UK

  96/R22/6–6 August 1996 Monsanto Europe, Belgium

  35/1174

  Oilseed Rape

  Plant Genetic Systems N.V., Belgium

  97/R15/20–1 August 1997 Plant Genetic Systems N.V., Belgium

  35/1175

  Oilseed Rape

  Plant Genetic Systems N.V., Belgium

  97/R15/20–1 August 1997 Plant Genetic Systems N.V., Belgium

  35/1176

  Oilseed Rape

  Plant Genetic Systems N.V., Belgium

  97/R15/20–1 August 1997 Plant Genetic Systems N.V., Belgium

  418
  Mr. Rooker
  In respect of the consents covering National List trials, the information requested is set out in the table. Further details relating to the release consents are available on a statutory public register which is maintained by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
  419

  Application number

  Species

  National list applicant

  Release consent number Date consent granted; Applicant for Consent

  35/1184

  Oilseed Rape

  Monsanto Crop Protection, UK

  96/R22/6–6 August 1996 Monsanto Europe, Belgium

  35/1185

  Oilseed Rape

  Monsanto Crop Protection, UK

  96/R22/6–6 August 1996 Monsanto Europe, Belgium

  35/1205

  Oilseed Rape

  Calgene Inc., USA

  97/R28/3–17 March 1998 John K. King & Sons Ltd.

  35/1206

  Oilseed Rape

  Calgene Inc., USA

  97/R28/3–17 March 1998 John K. King & Sons Ltd.

  35/1210

  Oil seed Rape

  Plant Genetic Systems N.V., Belgium

  97/R15/23–19 March 1998 Plant Genetic Systems N.V., Belgium

  35/1211

  Oilseed Rape

  Plant Genetic Systems N.V., Belgium

  97/R15/23–19 March 1998 Plant Genetic Systems N.V., Belgium

  35/1222

  Oilseed Rape

  Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc., USA

  97/R24/2–1 April 1998 Pioneer Genetique S.A.R.L., France

  Note:

  DETR application and consent numbers are the same

  Biotechnology
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the meetings his Department has held with(a) Monsanto, (b) AgrEvo, (c) Novartis, (d) Zeneca and (e) other representatives of the biotechnology industry relating to biotechnology. [46211]

  Mr. Rooker
  Neither my colleagues nor I have held any meeting with companies from the biotechnology industry since 1 May 1997. In addition to the meetings detailed in my reply to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 31 March 1998,Official Report, columns 505–08, officials have met representatives of biotechnology companies on the occasions listed.

  Date

  Company

  1997

  21 May

  Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc. USA

  28 May

  Novartis

  4 June

  CPB Twyford

  30 June

  Sharpes/KWS

  11 July

  Plant Breeding Institute

  18 July

  AgrEvo

  8 October

  Nickerson BIOCEM

  21 October

  Plant Breeding Institute, Zeneca, Nickerson BIOCEM and Advanced Technologies (Cambridge) Ltd.

  31 October

  Monsanto

  1998

  5 January

  Plant Genitic Systems

  14 January

  AgrEvo, Cynamid, Monsanto and Novartis

  15 January

  CPB Twyford

  11 February

  Advanta

  16 February

  Zeneca

  11 March

  AgrEvo, Cynamid, Monsanto and Novartis

  24 March

  Monsanto

  6 May

  Zeneca

  15 May

  Monsanto, AgrEvo and other biotechnology companies

  20 May

  Plant Genetic Systems

  22 May

  Monsanto, AgrEvo and other biotechnology companies

  9 June

  AgrEvo, Cynamid and Monsanto

  17 June

  Monsanto, AgrEvo and other biotechnology companies

  420
  In addition, the Veterinary Medicines Directorate meets regularly with representatives of pharmaceutical companies as part of its responsibilities for the authorisation of veterinary medicines in the UK.

  Meat Retailing
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list all legislation applicable to retailers of fresh meat. [46120]

  Mr. Rooker
  The list of food safety legislation applies, or may apply in certain circumstances, to retailers of fresh meat.The Arsenic in Food Regulations 1959 (SI 1959/831) (as amended)
  The Diseases of Animals (Waste Food) Order 1973 (SI 1973/1936) (as amended)
  The Lead in Food Regulations 1979 (SI 1979/1254) (as amended)
  The Food Safety Act 1990
  The Tin in Food Regulations 1992 (SI 1992/496)
  The Animal By-Products Order 1992 (SI 1992/3303) (as amended)
  The Pesticides (Maximum Residue Levels in Crops, Food and Feeding Stuffs) Regulations 1994 (SI 1994/1985) (as amended)
  The Food Safety (General Food Hygiene) Regulations 1995 (SI 1995/1763)
  The Food Safety (Temperature Control) Regulations 1995 (SI 1995/2200)
  The Fresh Meat (Beef Controls) (No 2) Regulations 1996 (SI 1996/2097) (as amended)
  The Animals and Animal Products (Examinations for Residues and Maximum Residue Limits) Regulations 1997 (SI 1997/1729)
  The Beef Bones Regulations 1997 (SI 1997/2959)
  The Specified Risk Material Order 1997 (SI 1997/2964)
  The Specified Risk Material Regulations 1997 (SI 1997/2965) (as amended).

  Abattoirs
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list all legislation applicable to abattoirs. [46122]

  Mr. Rooker
  The list of food safety legislation applies, or may apply in certain circumstances, to abattoirs. The list does not include legislation which applies only to establishments wishing to export.The Arsenic in Food Regulations 1959 (SI 1959/831) (as amended)
  The Diseases of Animals (Waste Food) Order 1973 (SI 1973/1936) (as amended)
  The Lead in Food Regulations 1979 (SI 1979/1254) (as amended)
  The Food Safety Act 1990
  The Animal By-Products Order 1992 (SI 1992/3303) (as amended)
  The Pesticides (Maximum Residue Levels in Crops, Food and Feeding Stuffs) Regulations 1994 (SI 1994/1985) (as amended)
  The Meat (Hygiene, Inspection and Examination for Residues)(Charges) Regulations 1995 (SI 1995/361)
  The Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1995 (SI 1995/539) (as amended)
  The Poultry Meat, Farmed Game Bird Meat and Rabbit Meat
  (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1995 (SI 1995/540)
  The Animal By-Products (Identification) Regulations 1995 (SI 1995/614) (as amended)
  The Food Safety (General Food Hygiene) Regulations 1995 (SI 1995/1763)
  The Wild Game Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1995 (SI 1995/2148)
  The Colours in Food Regulations 1995 (SI 1995/3124)
  The Fresh Meat (Beef Controls) (No 2) Regulations 1996 (SI 1996/2097) (as amended)
  The Animals and Animal Products (Examinations for Residues and Maximum Residue Limits) Regulations 1997 (SI 1997/1729)
  The Charges for Inspections and Controls Regulations 1997 (SI 1997/2893)
  The Beef Bones Regulations 1997 (SI 1997/2959)
  The Specified Risk Material Order 1997 (SI 1997/2964)
  The Specified Risk Material Regulations 1997 (SI 1997/2965) (as amended)
  The Cattle Identification Regulations 1998 (SI 1998/871).

  Meat-cutting Plants
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list all legislation affecting meat-cutting plants. [46121]

  Mr. Rooker
  The list of food safety legislation applies, or may apply in certain circumstances, to meat-cutting plants. The list does not include legislation which applies only to establishments wishing to export.The Arsenic in Food Regulations 1959 (SI 1959/831) (as amended)
  The Diseases of Animals (Waste Food) Order 1973 (SI 1973/1936) (as amended)
  The Lead in Food Regulations 1979 (SI 1979/1254) (as amended)
  The Food Safety Act 1990
  The Animal By-Products Order 1992 (SI 1992/3303) (as amended)
  422
  The Pesticides (Maximum Residue Levels in Crops, Food and Feeding Stuffs) Regulations 1994 (SI 1994/1985) (as amended)
  The Meat Products (Hygiene) Regulations 1994 (SI 1994/3082)
  The Meat (Hygiene, Inspection and Examination for Residues) (Charges) Regulations 1995 (SI 1995/361)
  The Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1995 (SI 1995/539) (as amended)
  The Poultry Meat, Farmed Game Bird Meat and Rabbit Meat
  (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1995 (SI 1995/540)
  The Food Safety (General Food Hygiene) Regulations 1995 (SI 1995/1763)
  The Wild Game Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1995 (SI 1995/2148)
  The Colours in Food Regulations 1995 (SI 1995/3124)
  The Minced Meat and Meat Preparations (Hygiene) Regulations 1995 (SI 1995/3205)
  The Fresh Meat (Beef Controls) (No 2) Regulations 1996 (SI 1996/2097) (as amended)
  The Animals and Animal Products (Examinations for Residues and Maximum Residue Limits) Regulations 1997 (SI 1997/1729)
  The Beef Bones Regulations 1997 (SI 1997/2959)
  The specified Risk Material Order 1997 (SI 1997/2964)
  The Specified Risk Material Regulations 1997 (SI 1997/2965) (as amended).

  Poultry
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many head of poultry have been compulsorily slaughtered under the Zoonoses orders; and at what cost to public funds.[46033]

  Mr. Rooker
  Between 1 March 1989 when the Zoonoses Order 1989 came into force and 31 March this year, 3,751,707 birds have been sent for compulsory slaughter in Great Britain following confirmed infection with Salmonella enteritidis or Salmonella typhimurium. The total amount paid in compensation is £8,660,931.

  BSE
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cattle have been compulsorily slaughtered under BSE regulations; and at what cost to public funds. [46061]

  Mr. Rooker
  Between 1988, when BSE became a notifiable disease, and 12 June 1998, 203,283 cattle had been compulsorily slaughtered in Great Britain as BSE suspects. Total BSE payments in respect of these slaughterings for the period from 1988 to the end of 1997/98 amount to over £191 million. This figure comprises BSE compensation payments, ex gratia payments and miscellaneous expenditure.

  In addition, certain cattle have been slaughtered under the selective cull. This covers cattle born 1 July 1989–30 June 1993 which are believed to have shared the same infected feed as BSE cases. Cattle born before 15 October 1990 are slaughtered only if the owner offers them voluntarily, as there was no legal requirement to keep birth records before that date. Such animals represent around 50 per cent. of the total slaughtered under the cull.

  The selective cull commenced on 21 March 1997. Total expenditure on the cull for the 1997/98 financial year was £114 million, including compensation for 65,540 animals,

  423
  and disposal and valuation costs. By 12 June 1998, 70,428 animals had been slaughtered under the selective cull.

  Bats (Rabies)
  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps are taken to ensure that all dead and grounded bats are examined for rabies. [46199]

  Mr. Rooker
  Members of the public and volunteer bat enthusiast groups in the UK are encouraged to submit dead bats to Veterinary Investigation Centres to be tested for the presence of rabies and rabies-related viruses.

  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the status of rabies in bats as a notifiable disease. [46197]

  Mr. Rooker
  Rabies, whether in a bat or in any other mammal, is a notifiable disease in accordance with the Rabies (Control) Order 1974.

  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many bats have been examined for rabies since June 1996. [46198]

  Mr. Rooker
  Between June 1996 and May 1998, 507 bats were examined for rabies.

  Live Animal Exports
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he plans to amend the law to require all live sheep and goats exported from the United Kingdom to be ear-tagged or tattooed to show the holding of birth; and if he will make a statement. [46118]

  Mr. Rooker
  Work on a draft Order which would require sheep and goats in Great Britain to be identified with the holding of birth is currently in hand. The Government hope it will be possible to consult on this draft in late summer. In Northern Ireland, legislation is in place which requires all sheep and goats moving off the holding of birth to be identified with an eartag or tattoo, making it possible to identify the holding of birth.

  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) when he plans to introduce the new arrangements for live animal exports whereby certifying veterinarians will be nominated by the Government; and if he will make a statement; [46116]

  (2) when he plans to announce the results of the review which he initiated in May 1997 of the arrangements for enforcing the rules on the welfare of farm animals exported live to the Continent; and if he will make a statement. [46117]

  Mr. Morley
  The results of the review, including the principles of the proposed changes, were announced last Autumn. We are currently working up the final details for public consultation. When the consultation document is issued, which I hope will be next month, I will arrange to have a copy placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the result of the inquiry by the French Government into the failure of a number of 424
  live British calves exported to France in 1995 to reach the destinations declared in the route plans submitted to his Department; and if he will make a statement. [46119]

  Mr. Morley
  A judicial investigation by the French Government is still under way and the Department continues to assist the French authorities in this matter.

  Whales
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the current pressures on the stock of each species of whale. [46192]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government contribute to assessments of whale stocks through their membership of the International Whaling Commission. The IWC's Scientific Committee is continuing its programme of intensive assessments of great whale stocks, and is also developing long term research programmes to assess the effects of pollution and climate change on cetaceans.

  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the likely impact of a lifting of the moratorium on commercial whaling. [46196]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government remain strongly opposed to lifting the existing moratorium on commercial whaling, since we believe that such an action would harm whale conservation.

  Coastal Fishing Limits
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his Department's definition of coastal fisheries limits. [46032]

  Mr. Morley
  British fishery limits generally extend, by virtue of the Fishery Limits Act 1976, to 200 nautical miles from baselines. As laid down in the Territorial Sea Act 1987, the UK's territorial sea generally extends to 12 nautical miles from baselines. Sea Fisheries Committee districts for the management of inshore fisheries extend to 6 nautical miles from baselines.

  Coastal Zone Management
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions on the question of coastal zone management were held at the Council of Ministers on 8 June; and what were the opinions expressed by the other ministers. [46040]

  Mr. Morley
  This subject was not discussed at the Fisheries Council on 8 June.

  Spanish Distant Water Fleet
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the tonnage of the Spanish distant water fleet has been in each year since 1985. [46035]

  Mr. Morley
  Information about the fishing fleets of other Member States is contained in the EU Commission's annual reports on progress under the Multi-Annual Guidance Programme (MAGP), which sets
  425
  national objectives for the capacity of different fleet segments. The Report in July 1997 provided the following information for Spain covering the period 1991 to 1996.

  The Spanish fishing fleet: Segments comprising vessels fishing in third country and in international waters: gross registered tonnage

  Year

  Trawlers and polyvalent

  Pelagic seiners, netters

  Tuna fleet

  1991

  264,695

  31,859

  58,648

  1992

  239,699

  36,018

  59,612

  1993

  214,682

  36,349

  56,136

  1994

  198,780

  34,775

  56,136

  1995

  173,745

  27,824

  55,286

  1996

  148,759

  28,283

  54,907

  Fishing Vessels
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much grant aid from the Fishing Vessels (Safety Improvements) (Grants) Scheme 1995 and the Fisheries and Aquaculture Structures (Grants) Regulations 1995 has been paid to fishing vessels over 12 metres in length in each year since 1995. [46476]

  Mr. Morley
  Total grant paid to fishing vessels in the UK under these schemes is:

  1995–96: £2.861 million

  1996–97: £1.958 million

  1997–98: £1.796 million.

  These figures include grant awarded under similar vessel grant schemes in operation prior to the introduction of the Fishing Vessels (Safety Improvements) (Grants) Scheme 1995 and the Fisheries and Aquaculture Structures (Grants) Regulations 1995, but paid during the relevant financial years. Under the safety grant, scheme aid is available only to fishing vessels of 12 metres or more in length. In Objective 1 areas some payments are made under the Fisheries and Aquaculture Structures (Grants) Regulations to smaller vessels. These amounts are also included in the above figures as separate information is not readily available.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total amount of levies collected in each of the last five years by the Sea Fish Industry Authority from landings from fishing vessels(a) over 12 metres and (b) under 12 metres in length. [46475]

  Mr. Morley
  This information is not available in the form requested. Levies collected by the Sea Fish Industry Authority are based on the value of fish landed and records do not distinguish between vessels over or under 12 metres in length. The total amount collected in each of the last five years from landings from all fishing vessels is as follows:

  Year

  £ million

  1993–94

  3.015

  1994–95

  3.118

  1995–96

  3.156

  1996–97

  3.407

  1997–98

  3.114

  Bakery Training (Russia)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much has been spent by his Department through ADAS or similar organisations in establishing bakery training facilities in Russia; how many Russians have so far been trained as a result of this initiative; and what plans he has for further spending on such projects. [46713]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 19 June 1998]: The Department has had no involvement in projects of this nature and has spent no money on them either through ADAS or any other commercial organisation.

  Organic Farming
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) of 2 April 1998,Official Report, columns 655–56, in respect of the research into the implications for organic forms of cross contamination with pollen from genetically modified crops (a) who is undertaking the research, (b) when he expects the research to be completed and (c) if the results will be published in full. [46560]

  Mr. Rooker
  The contract for the research has not yet been awarded. Once work has started, it is expected that the research will take between 3 to 6 months to complete. The results of this research will be disseminated widely.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Departmental Vehicles (Fuel Consumption)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn) on 16 June 1998,Official Report, column 152, what percentage of (a) all vehicles currently held and (b) vehicles used by Ministers have on average fuel consumption of less than 26 miles per gallon; what steps he is taking to replace them; and if he will make a statement. [46970]

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

  Letter from Nick Matheson to Mr. Norman Baker, dated 22 June 1998:
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service, has asked me in my capacity as Chief Executive of the Government Car and Despatch Agency to reply to your Parliamentary Question about the fuel consumption of vehicles used by the Agency.
  We are not in a position to extract fuel consumption figures for individual vehicles within the GCDA fleet at the present time. However, based on official published combined urban cycle fuel consumption figures for the cars involved:-

  a) 14.1% of the total GCDA fleet has an estimated fuel consumption below 26.0 mpg.

  b) 11.5% of cars allocated to Ministers have a fuel consumption below 26.0 mpg. All of these are scheduled for replacement or conversion to use alternative gas fuels within the next 18 months.

  427
  I am not satisfied with the current method of measuring fuel consumption and as part of my management reforms for the Agency I have recently changed the method of recording fuel consumption so that I can begin to make performance comparisons between individual vehicles under normal operating conditions. This work will be completed in the next week or so and if the results indicate a material change in the figures I have given above, I will write again to provide that information.

  Freedom of Information
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if it remains his policy to publish a freedom of information bill; and if he will make a statement. [46846]

  Dr. David Clark
  It does remain my policy to publish a freedom of information Bill.

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

Millennium Exhibition: Access by Public Transport
Lord Skidelsky Lord Skidelsky asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are confident that adequate transport arrangements to and from Greenwich will be in place in good time for the opening of the dome and the start of the millennium exhibitions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, the delivery of a package of key transport infrastructure projects to improve access to North Greenwich before the start of the millennium exhibition is currently on target. My right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister has asked the Minister for Transport in London to chair a co-ordination group taking an overview of access to the millennium exhibition, and the noble Lord, Lord Levene of Portsoken, has kindly agreed to monitor and advise the Government on progress to ensure the integration of key links and that specific projects are on time.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, but is it not the case that the expectation that a huge number of visitors will be able to visit the dome in trouble-free fashion depends crucially on the completion of the Jubilee line extension? Is it not the case that the opening of that line has already been delayed twice by signalling failures and that there is widespread concern
2
that it will not be open on time? Can the Government give a firm assurance that it will be ready on time, and tell us the basis for that confidence?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right that the Jubilee line extension will be a key public transport infrastructure for visitors to the millennium dome exhibition. We expect that some 60 per cent. of visitors will use the Jubilee line for at least part of their journey. The project is on time to open in spring 1999. It is well advanced. We believe that the timetable will be met. The tunnels have all been constructed; all the station buildings are completed; all the track has been laid and the new trains are already in service on existing lines. With regard to signalling, because of the concerns about the moving block system, the decision was taken to install fixed block signalling. Although no one can be absolutely certain about anything in life, I confirm that the project is on time and on target—very much like the dome itself.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, may I ask the Minister how many passengers she expects to travel to the millennium dome by river on the new river-bus service that is being planned and whether the service will continue to operate after the end of the millennium exhibition in order to provide general public transport assistance for London?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, about 10 per cent. of visitors are expected to arrive by river. One of the most important and exciting aspects of this is that the river transport arrangements made for access to the exhibition will have a legacy value both in terms of the new piers that are being provided—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the phrase "the new piers" gets a laugh every time. There will be a legacy value not only in terms of the new piers, but also in terms of the services that are expected to remain in place once the exhibition has finished.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, the appointment of the group headed by the noble Lord, Lord Levene, suggests

3
that there could be some serious problems. I am sure that appointing such a group was a sensible move—presumably it will be able quickly to give the Government its assessment of the situation. Will the Minister share that assessment with the House as soon as she gets it?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Levene, is not in his place this afternoon because he is visiting the Jubilee line extension project. He is active in that role. The group meets regularly and I know that both the noble Lord and my honourable friend the Minister for Transport in London last week gave evidence about progress to the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport in another place. There is no desire not to be open about progress.
The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, suggested that the formation of the group indicates great problems. I think that there are great challenges. We are talking not only about the Jubilee line extension because it is a challenge to produce such an event as a mainly car-free event. There must be co-ordination between the different forms of transport involved, which include river transport, the Jubilee line extension, the millennium transit, the bus transport that will be provided from a refurbished Charlton station, and the cable car. There are all sorts of different ways of gaining access to the exhibition. It is important that they are well co-ordinated and that there is good communication between the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) and the Government on those issues.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does the Minister recollect the visit of Sir Anthony Eden to Moscow in 1935 when it was proposed that the terminal of one of the new underground railways should be named after him, and an old Communist—if I can use this parallel—much objected to honouring a capitalist statesman, but the commissar for transport said, "Don't worry; the trains will never get there"?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I admit that I have no personal recollection of it. I believe that the best approach is to wait and see whether those who are determined to regard the glass as half-empty are proved right or whether the Government are right in believing that there will be good, modern, public transport accessible to the disabled and available for travelling to an extremely successful event.
Lord Montague of Oxford: My Lords, now that sponsorship money exceeds £100 million and that today the Prime Minister has said that building will go on well into the next century, does my noble friend agree that the transport group should be asked to consider whether the estimate of the numbers to be moved is sufficient? Clearly, the event will be a great success and there may be a greater number. I am sure that everyone will want to get to "Mandelson station".
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the maximum number of visitors to the exhibition at any one time to allow
4
everyone to enjoy the experience properly is 35,000. I understand that on some occasions there will be two sessions so that there may be 60,000 people per day at the event. The exact number of visitors in any one year or, as the noble Lord has suggested, beyond that time is perhaps a matter that goes wider than transport considerations. Some of the transport challenges can be overestimated. For example, 35,000 people manage to get to Highbury and three other football grounds in London without too much effort on most Saturday afternoons when premier games are played.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, people reach Highbury via well known and well-documented links. The noble Baroness referred to the need to co-ordinate different forms of transport. Has the Minister considered the problem that many people who go to the millennium dome will not be Londoners and will not necessarily frequently travel to London? Has she given any thought to what steps may be taken to ensure that all of the different companies which are involved in transporting people in and around London produce co-ordinated publicity material so that visitors can find their way around?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Baroness makes an important point about information. I point out that away supporters also attend London football grounds and they do not necessarily know their way round the transport system. It is extremely important that the different arrangements and possibilities of travel to the millennium exhibition are well publicised at the time people buy tickets. People will not be able simply to turn up at the event. It is important that they understand the possibilities. For example, when coach tours are involved it is important that coach operators understand that because of the limited number of spaces available they must have a coach permit. These issues are taken very seriously by all of the transport operators, the companies themselves and my department. I believe that good progress is being made in co-ordinating efforts so that people are well advised as to how to make the smoothest journey.

Sex Discrimination at Private Events
2.46 p.m.
Lord Razzall Lord Razzall asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will seek to amend the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 to extend protection to visitors to events organised by trade unions and professional organisations.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, Section 29 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 already provides protection to visitors on access to all public events, whether organised by trade unions or professional associations, as with other public events. However, that Act does not extend to private events. It is for the organisations concerned

5
to decide their policy regarding visitors. At present the Government have no plans to extend the scope of the Act in this way.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer, but does he accept that the Equal Opportunities Commission is calling for an overall review of the operation of the sex discrimination legislation? Does he also accept that the Answer he has given does not go far enough? Surely, a registered trade union has responsibilities that go further than those of a members' club? He will accept that members' clubs are entitled to discriminate on sexual grounds against any of their members or members' guests. Bearing in mind the publicity being generated by the World Cup, will the Minister address the particular issue of whether it was right for the Professional Footballers Association to discriminate on grounds of sex against a guest who happened to be the only woman who was a registered FIFA football agent? Does the Minister agree that the Minister should provide legislative protection for her?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord eventually got round to explaining to other noble Lords what his Question was really about. The Government's view of this event is quite clear. My honourable friend the Minister for Sport refused to attend this event in view of the attitude adopted by the Professional Footballers Association. The noble Lord is correct that the EOC is looking at the operation of the Sex Discrimination Act, and the Government will take seriously any recommendations in this as in other areas. But trade unions and professional associations are required in relation to membership, access to benefits etc. to operate on an equal access basis. However, dealing with private events is a complex matter and one in which the sex discrimination legislation has so far not intruded. Serious issues would have to be dealt with before legislation could be drafted to attack that.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, can my noble friend go a little further? Surely, the Government support the EOC in its desire to have a simple statement of the limits of sex discrimination legislation. The Government are committed under the fairness at work proposals to do something about maternity benefits, parental leave and so on. Does my noble friend agree that this is a unique opportunity for the Government in the coming legislation to do what the EOC asks for and set out in clear terms the overall limits of sex equality legislation in this country? Can my noble friend go a little further in that regard?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am sure that we all want simplicity in this area. As I have said, we shall take seriously the EOC's proposals on the working of the Sex Discrimination Act. Clarity in drafting legislation in relation to private events is not easily achievable. That is what is raised by this issue. The Government's general attitude is clear: we deplore any such discrimination.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of any man or woman who, because they
6
were a man or a woman, has been excluded from an event organised by a trade union or a professional organisation? If not, what on earth is this all about?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, made clear the occasion. It is the only one in recent years to my knowledge, and relates to the Professional Footballers Association and the exclusion of this lady.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, does the Minister agree that as it is now 23 years since the Sex Discrimination Act was introduced, it is about time that it was reviewed? It is important that the Government take action in this matter rather than wait for the EOC. In the meantime, will he actively discourage Members of your Lordships' House from attending functions at which women are actively discriminated against?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am prepared to discourage any noble Lord or noble Baroness from attending any function at which members of either sex are excluded merely on the grounds of their sex. Noble Lords may have other events in mind, but I shall not go too far down that road. I am sure that the noble Lord will accept that it is sensible to consider the EOC's recommendations in the round before we start legislating. It is time that we reviewed the workings of the Act, and we should do so in this respect and others.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, with regard to the EOC, which deals with matters relating to equality between the sexes, will my noble friend tell us how many men and how many women constitute the EOC itself? If there is not now equality will he ensure that there is?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not sure that I am up to date with the exact numbers. The EOC consists of men and women in roughly equal proportions. That will continue to be the case.

NATO Strategic Concept
2.57 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire Lord Wallace of Saltaire asked Her Majesty's Government:
What information they intend to provide to Parliament about progress in formulating NATO's new strategic concept before its adoption by the alliance in the spring of 1999.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, decisions on the revision of NATO's strategic concept will be a matter for collective agreement by NATO heads of state and government at the Washington Summit in April 1999. The United Kingdom will play a full part in this process. Members of both Houses will have the opportunity to debate NATO matters during the enlargement debates in both Houses. The Government also expect to contribute to a future inquiry into

7
NATO summit issues which, I understand, the Defence Select Committee in another place intends to conduct.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I understand that those consultations are well under way. Will the noble Lord confirm that representatives of the Czech, Hungarian and Polish Governments, who are not yet members of NATO, are being consulted and taking part in the consultations? Given that NATO is the key to British defence strategy, does he think it desirable that this House and the other place should be informed and consulted as consultations proceed rather than being presented with a fait accompli next April?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I, and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister have said that before any ratification of enlargement both Houses will have an opportunity to discuss the issues. Of course your Lordships had a debate last Friday on the nature of NATO in relation to enlargement. We shall no doubt have further such debates.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, will the noble Lord assure the House that in those discussions the UK will support full respect for national sovereignty of all UN members?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the sovereignty of UN members is protected under the UN Charter. The UN Charter also includes the commitment to observe certain basic principles of human rights. On occasions, intervention is required within the boundaries of member states of the UN.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind that the US Senate, in giving its assent to American ratification of the expansion of NATO, made it a condition that the new strategic concept should be brought before the US Senate twice during the course of its re-negotiation; that is, before any text is adopted? Will he consider whether that might conceivably be a precedent for our Parliament? If not, in what way can we be content to be less democratic in this matter than the US?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I have already indicated that this House and this Parliament will have an opportunity to discuss these matters. As the debate on Friday initiated by my noble friend Lord Kennet indicated, the US Senate was putting different conditions on the various developments within NATO. That is a matter primarily for the US. It is important to remember that if cost is its main concern, its share in proportion to GDP is less compared with that of the other allies. In no sense do we intend to be any less democratic when considering these issues than our allies.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, bearing in mind the manifesto commitment to seek the abolition of nuclear weapons world-wide, can we be assured that, in
8
discussions on the new strategic concept for NATO, Her Majesty's Government will ensure that the elimination of nuclear weapons as part of NATO's strategy is on the table?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Government's position on nuclear disarmament has been made clear by my noble friend Lady Symons on many occasions in answer to my noble friend Lord Jenkins. We are committed to early discussions on multilateral nuclear disarmament. NATO's role in that is clearly a significant element. However, nuclear weapons are not NATO weapons; they are the weapons of the US, France, Britain and the other nuclear powers.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, bearing in mind the terms of the Question, which was about progress in formulating NATO'S new strategic concept before its adoption, is that not different from ratification? Can we have an assurance that there will be consultation during this period and not purely ratification after it has happened?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the commitment that I have already given will ensure that this House will have adequate time to discuss the matter before the process is complete. There will obviously need to be a ratification debate in this House and another place.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, My noble friend properly raised the issue of nuclear weapons in this connection. Does my noble friend agree that, although the Government have been commendably clear about their own position in the matter, they have shown no signs of wishing to spread the word among other NATO members? On some suitable occasions would it not be appropriate for NATO or, conceivably, some other UN organisation to tackle this matter so that the Government's ideas may be spread more widely than is the case at present?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we are in close contact with all our allies on these issues in NATO and in other contexts. The Government cannot be criticised for failing to make it clear to our allies and other countries where we stand on the issue of nuclear disarmament.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, will the strategic concept embody the principle of equitable contribution from each of the European member states of the alliance? Will it also establish mechanisms for monitoring the achievement of that equitability?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, cost contributions will be considered in formulating the future strategic concept. However, the burden sharing has already been set for a

9
number of years ahead. It will no doubt be reviewed from time to time. This exercise will not affect those proportions.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, will the Minister assure us that these important defence debates, not least the SDR debate, will not occur on a Friday or the last day before the Summer Recess?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as the noble Earl will realise there are many things which are within my power to promise, but I cannot however promise time. That is a matter for the usual channels.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, can the Government confirm that in these discussions the United States evinces more enthusiasm for the European pillar of NATO than do the British Government?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the British Government, the United States Government and our European allies all recognise and agree that there has to be a strong European identity within NATO.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, is the noble Lord satisfied that Her Majesty's Government have done enough to assist those nations not in the first wave to meet the criteria which NATO will set so that they can join NATO as quickly as possible?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the House knows that considerable measures have ensured that all those eastern central European countries which have expressed a wish to join NATO have received military co-operation in various forms from us. The decision on further enlargement of NATO will depend on the success of the enlargement to be finalised in March of next year.

Millennium Dome: Award of Contracts
3 p.m.
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux Lord Randall of St. Budeaux asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy, when awarding contracts for the Millennium Dome project, for ensuring that British companies have the same opportunities as those from other countries.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the procedures adopted by the New Millennium Experience Company for procuring goods, services and equipment meet UK domestic and European Union requirements for fair and open competition among potential suppliers. My noble friend will be especially pleased to hear that UK companies have done exceptionally well in winning contracts for the Millennium Dome project with 29 of the 30 main trade contracts having been let to companies based in the UK.
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that much of British industry will be
10
pleased to hear the Answer he has given me? Although there has been much bad publicity about the millennium project, it is regarded as prestigious, in particular by overseas companies which wish to win contracts. Am I correct in interpreting my noble friend's Answer to mean that there will be a level playing field for British companies, and that the political lobbying, in particular from overseas governments, will not take precedence over commercial excellence?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, perhaps I may congratulate my noble friend on his birthday and express regret that our unfair sex discrimination laws mean that unlike a woman he will have to wait another five years for his bus pass.
My noble friend is right that the Millennium Dome contracts are prestigious. He can be assured that there is and will be a level playing field. Indeed, I should have thought that political lobbying by other governments would be a disadvantage rather than an advantage.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I speak as a member of the Millennium Commission. Is the noble Lord aware that the Millennium Commission has funded a considerable part of the project; that it has the spotlight of the Treasury and all others upon it; and that all procedures for procurement are under a microscope at all times on such a project?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord had the advantage of being invited to the topping-out of the dome this morning which I did not. In that sense, his information may be more up-to-date than mine. I can confirm what the noble Lord says.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, the construction of the dome has apparently been conducted within the time limits and the budget set. It is therefore a great success in that regard; and that distinguishes it from many other major projects recently undertaken. Will the procedures adopted to achieve that desirable result be fully documented and passed on to those who may be concerned with further major projects?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Prime Minister made the same point this morning. I am sure he will be grateful to the noble Lord for his comments about what has been achieved so far. I think that the noble Lord's suggestion about documentation will be well received.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, would the Minister like to express a view about the rather unusual figure that appears on top of the dome?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not sure that I understand the noble Viscount's reference to "on top of the dome". He may be referring to the large human figure which is to appear in one of the zones of the dome. I understand that discussions about the configuration of that figure (if that is the right word) continue.

Petition: Sex Discrimination Act 1975
3.4 p.m.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, in conformity with the procedure of the House, I beg to present a Petition from Ms. Rachel Anderson, which prays that this House will call upon Her Majesty's Government to review the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 with the intention of enhancing the powers of the Act, so that discrimination such as that practised by the PFA against Ms Rachel Anderson at the PFA Awards Dinner be clearly against the law. The Petition is already on the Table of the House.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I make a short business Statement concerning this evening's Unstarred Question in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. A revised speakers' list has been issued to correct an error in the time allocated to speakers in the debate. With the exception of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn, who have 10 minutes and 12 minutes respectively, all other speeches should be limited to six minutes and not to nine minutes as stated in the original speakers' list.

Registered Establishments (Scotland) Bill
Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld: 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.—(Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Police (Northern Ireland) Bill
3.6 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 24 [Attestation of constables]:
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 1:
Leave out Clause 24.
The noble Lord said: My Lords with the leave of the House, perhaps I may speak at the same time to Amendment No. 5 which is consequential. If agreed to, the effect of this pair of amendments would be to retain the existing loyal oath for recruits to the RUC for the time being. Perhaps I may take a moment to set the scene. As the explanatory and financial memorandum reminds us, the Bill was conceived by the Labour Party in opposition. But no opposition party, however thorough its researches, can have access to all the facts
12
as they evolve in the way that a government do. More importantly, events have developed at an astonishing pace.
Eighteen months ago no one could have foreseen the Good Friday deal or the appointment of the Patten Commission. What might have seemed desirable then may look very different today. Much of the Bill is fairly non-controversial. Few could seriously object to the idea of a police ombudsman, for example. But no matter what the police authority may say, altering the oath is a very different matter and not strictly integral to the Bill.
The senior ranks of the RUC appear to feel that publicly they must go along with the establishment view, whatever their private feelings may be. My information is that the far more numerous junior ranks are most unhappy about the position, as indeed they are with prisoner release and many other aspects of the "peace process". In the Financial Times of 2nd June—by no means a pro-unionist newspaper; if anything somewhat the reverse—its correspondent Jimmy Burns reported that the Royal Ulster Constabulary faced an uncertain future following the Good Friday peace agreement. He highlighted the Ulster Police Federation's's deep distrust of the Government's stance on police reform, and added:
"To many RUC officers, the very word reform smacks of ungratefulness if not betrayal. 'We are the cement that held the province together in the Troubles' [the federation spokesman said] 'and suddenly we're told that we are the problem'".
It is in that context that Clause 24 and Schedule 2 must be viewed.
A number of dishonest commentators claim that the reason for the disproportionately small percentage of Catholics in the RUC is an anti-Catholic bias in the force. That claim is all too readily swallowed by a gullible mainland public. The real reason, as most of us in this House know and as the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, pointed out so forcefully and tellingly on Second Reading, is that Catholic officers are even more vulnerable to assassination by the IRA or the INLA than are their Protestant fellow officers. Remove that threat and Catholic enlistments will rise, perhaps quite sharply.
There is no inherent incompatibility between Irish Roman Catholicism and loyalty to the Crown. I knew a distinguished officer in the Royal Air Force, a charming, interesting and very able man, who happened to be a Catholic from Dungannon. The one thing which marred enjoyment of his career was that he could not visit his elderly and infirm mother in Dungannon because the IRA had threatened to try to kill him if he set foot in the town. How insulting to such a man, and there are many thousands like him, to suggest that Roman Catholics cannot reasonably be expected to be loyal to the Crown.
Perhaps it will be claimed that the revised oath is necessary to attract nationalists as distinct from Roman Catholics. Yet members of the SDLP, such as John Hume and Seamus Mallon, who after all represent the majority of nationalists, are content to take the oath upon entering the House of Commons. It may also be an attempt to justify the proposed change on the ground

13
that the police in Scotland make a broadly similar attestation, yet the Scots form only about 8½ per cent. of the population of the United Kingdom.
A comparison with the Republic of Ireland is far more relevant given the push towards cross-border harmonisation and the fact that "parity of esteem" is the buzz phrase of the moment. Presumably, parity of esteem means the unionists in the south being treated with the same respect and consideration as nationalists in the north. Is the oath taken by those joining the Garda in the south purged of patriotic sentiment so as to avoid offending the tiny handful of unionists still living there who may wish to join? Not a bit of it. I shall read a condensed version of the rather long oath taken in the Republic:
"I … do solemnly and sincerely before God declare and affirm, and my word and honour pledge … that I will render good and true service and obedience to Ireland and its constitution and government as by law established … and that I will prevent to the best of my power all the offences against the same".
That is stirring patriotic stuff. And why on earth not? Unionists in the south accept it.
Questions relating to recruitment and to the culture, ethos and symbols of the RUC are matters for the Patten Commission to advise upon. The commission could recommend maintenance of the status quo. Or it could recommend that the oath should be altered, possibly in the form suggested in Schedule 2. If that were to happen it would be sad—but far better and far less demoralising to the rank and file of the RUC that it should come about as part and parcel of one final comprehensive package deal rather than as yet one more capitulation in the seemingly never-ending war of attrition: death by a thousand cuts.
Perhaps I may suggest a possible compromise. If the Minister will agree to an amendment on Third Reading to postpone the coming into operation of Clause 24 and Schedule 2 for 12 months, or until the Patten Commission has reported—whichever may be the sooner—I shall be glad to withdraw the amendment. The commission may recommend the status quo, in which case Schedule 2 could remain in limbo indefinitely. It may recommend a third, middle way for which there could be swift legislation. Alternatively, it may recommend acceptance of the wording proposed in Schedule 2, in which case it could be brought into operation immediately and without delay. With that offer, I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I am happy to support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Monson. The thrust of the Good Friday agreement was harmonisation between Northern Ireland on the one hand and the Irish Republic on the other. For understandable reasons, the wordsmiths were anxious to avoid specifics in many key areas and this is one. One would not have expected the two governments to reveal to the innocent the formula of November 1997 at which the wordsmiths were required to work—and I quote as I have in your Lordships' House many times:
"While it would not be possible to grant the demands of Mr. Adams, we shall provide the mechanism to deliver them".
14
That provides us all with food for thought.
The undertaking was established in full in the Good Friday agreement. The 71 per cent. endorsement was obtained in the referendum by a mixture of crude threats from some quarters and naked pressure from others. There was also a degree of manipulation of the news industry on a scale which sometimes made Dr. Goebbels look like a blundering amateur.
The torture is being repeated in advance of Thursday's assembly elections to ensure that the above-mentioned mechanism—namely, the promised conveyor belt—is set in motion as soon as possible thereafter. To some extent, the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill preceded formal approval of the agreement. It was then presented as a "confidence building measure"—wonderful words—not specifying whose confidence. Being interpreted, it means "increasing the confidence of terrorists and eroding the confidence of the law-abiding citizens of Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom in general".
As the text of the Bill stands, it is outdated by the Good Friday agreement which, by means of the conveyor belt, seeks to press forward measures to secure harmonisation over many areas. But the Bill before your Lordships, in Clause 24 and Schedule 2, creates a yawning gap between the declaration required of the police in the Irish Republic, quoted by my noble friend Lord Monson, and, in the case of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, a mere affirmation to "discharge duties", which is not very different from the promise made by the Sainsbury recruit when interviewed for a job on the check-out.
The Garda recruit will not be enlisted unless and until he has declared before God that he will render good and true service and obedience to Ireland, and to its constitution, and to its government. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, asked what is wrong with that. I am not certain that many Members on the Benches to my left would in former times have pledged allegiance to the government which existed for some 18 years. Not only is the constitution by law established, but also the government. That is an intolerable demand to make of any policeman in any nation anywhere.
I find it curious that nowhere in the negotiations leading up to the so-called Good Friday agreement did any Dublin police federation draw attention to the inferior position in which the Irish police now find themselves. We are told that the convoluted text of the Good Friday agreement is sacred, even more so than the Dead Sea Scrolls, and that not even a word can be changed by either Prime Minister. I acknowledge that your Lordships' House cannot legislate to relieve such an imposition on the Irish police as our jurisdiction does not extend that far. However, Clause 75 of the Bill provides for implementation on different days for different purposes. Would it be possible to obtain an undertaking that Clause 24 shall not be implemented until the Government of the Irish Republic have had a reasonable opportunity to modernise their laws, and thus build confidence within the Irish police security forces?
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I strongly support the amendment. The notes to the Bill made it clear, as I pointed out on Second Reading (at col. 1362 of Hansard), that the amended form of the oath was put forward for no other reason than that it goes some way to "meeting nationalist concerns". That is not the same as addressing a perceived problem for Catholics wishing to join the RUC. Those few brave men and women who have done so—few because to do so means putting at risk their lives and those of their families, not only during their service but for ever—had no problem with swearing allegiance to the Crown any more than Catholics did in the Armed Forces or in the UK Parliament, because this is above party.
The only people with a problem are Sinn Fein/IRA. Once again, the Government are putting the perceived wish of a militant minority above that of the majority. The majority of people in Northern Ireland do not vote Sinn Fein/IRA and wish to remain part of the UK. I should dare to guess that if a poll were taken in the RUC, an overwhelming number would wish to keep the present form of affirmation and that they would have the support of the vast majority of ordinary people, Catholic and Protestant.
To put this change through, tucked away in Schedule 2 is one more signal that the Government are more interested in, at worst, pleasing the IRA and, at best, in pandering to a general media view that the Queen, the National Anthem and the sinister word "Royal" are not part of Cool Britannia and can easily be discarded. But I do not believe that that is the view of most ordinary people in Northern Ireland. That is not what they think of the Crown. They value the connection and it means a great deal to them. It is arguable that the RUC's commitment to the Crown and all it stands for, above party, has been a decisive factor in their will to continue to serve.
Do the Government really wish to make a move which is likely to demoralise and anger so many serving officers, let alone those who are in retirement because of injuries sustained in the line of duty? They all have families and the families have votes. This is a time to reassure the majority who want peace but who also want their point of view to be listened to and respected.
I hope that the Government will recognise that to retain the existing oath will send an important message to the majority and will not discourage anyone but Sinn Fein/IRA. No one will grieve for the new formula and I hope very much that the Minister will feel able to accept the proposal made by the noble Lord, Lord Monson; namely, that at least a decision might be deferred until the Patten Commission has reported and until it has been possible to see this matter in a proper light, away from the pressures of the coming election.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I am so often in agreement with the noble Baroness that it is disorienting for me to disagree with her, as I must do this afternoon. However, I do not support the amendment and I should like to explain briefly why that is so.
16
It is extremely difficult for us to be discussing the Bill at this particular juncture. The Patten Commission has only just been established and it is obviously crucial that the morale of the RUC, which has borne so much of the heat of the day in Northern Ireland, should be sustained. Nevertheless, this new oath, as contemplated, is not difficult for new members, new constables, to make. It is straightforward.
By contrast, the amendment seeks to say that there is something special about the form of the present oath. That dates back a long way, in fact to the Constabulary (Ireland) Act 1836. Although I can see that in this House we may be particularly watchful of tradition, it is worth noting that the oath which is made on the mainland by MPs, justices of the peace and constables has been revised during the past 160 years. Therefore, there does not seem to be any intrinsic reason why the equivalent oath in Northern Ireland should be immune to change.
However, the crucial reason for rejecting this amendment is, of course, the Good Friday agreement, which was mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Monson, and Lord Molyneaux. That agreement states that the participants,
"believe that this agreement offers a unique opportunity to bring about a new political dispensation which will recognise the full and equal legitimacy and worth of the identities, sense of allegiance and ethos of all sections of the community in Northern Ireland".
It goes on:
"They consider that this opportunity should inform and underpin the development of a police service representative in terms of the make-up of the community as a whole".
Therefore, the Good Friday agreement makes it plain that the police service must be reformed to accommodate the allegiances, identities and ethoses which were not represented—it is no good pretending that they were—by the 1836 oath. The current drafting of the Bill is entirely in line with both the letter and sprit of the Good Friday agreement. That is why I trust that the amendment will be rejected by your Lordships' House.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, there is one point about which I am concerned. I notice that, under this Bill, the RUC will be covered by equal opportunities legislation which was not the case before.
I believe that the present oath is fairly inadequate. When you join a serious service, which the Royal Ulster Constabulary is, it should be a serious ceremony. The two lines which constitute the present oath are fairly weak. However, I should be concerned if a person could be found to do something illegal under equal opportunities legislation if that person were part of an organisation in Northern Ireland whose rules require that, to be a member of it, you must take an oath to the Queen, to our Kingdom.
Lord Blease: My Lords, is there anything to prevent this Bill as it stands being examined by the Patten Commission when it is established? If the Patten Commission wishes to examine this Bill, or if anyone

17
wishes to draw it to the attention of the commission, that can be done. The Bill had a tremendous number of changes and amendments made to it in another place.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Blease, may have been looking forward to Amendment No. 4 in suggesting that the whole Bill should be left for consideration by the Patten Commission and not implemented until afterwards, but it is a shrewd point.
However, the purpose of this amendment is more limited. It is concerned solely with the change to the oath to be taken by the new members of the RUC. It seems to me that this is a particular example of pre-empting Patten in the name of modernisation, as far as I can detect. The terms of reference of the Patten Commission on policing for Northern Ireland include specifically the composition, recruitment, training, culture, ethos and symbols of the police in Northern Ireland. The commission is asked to look specifically at those aspects, and the oath is obviously a major part of that process.
Therefore, I believe that this pre-empts Patten in the name of modernisation. The present oath has survived since 1836, so it does not seem to me that there need be any particular hurry to change it when the Patten Commission is to report within 12 months or so. In any event, this Bill will not come into effect for quite a period within that year.
Every change these days is recommended with the single word "modernisation". We hear that all the time. The Government wish to modernise everything and sometimes no other argument is thought necessary. In the particular case of the RUC oath, the two Ministers in the different Houses used almost identical paragraphs on Second Reading to recommend the change. Both of them said that the new oath was "broadly similar" to that in use in Scotland. It is not precisely the same, but it is broadly similar. The Notes on Clauses state that it is copied from the Scottish oath and that ought to recommend it to the unionist community. It is true that the words used in both Houses were not precisely identical because the Minister changed the order of the words in one sentence, apparently to avoid ending the sentence with a preposition. It occurred to me this morning that the Lords Hansard writers may have tidied up the English so as not to record a Member of your Lordships' House speaking bad English, but perhaps that is an unworthy thought!
More significantly, the Minister omitted the last sentence used by Mr. Ingram, the Minister in another place. That was the sentence in which he implied—although he did not exactly say it—that the change of the oath would encourage nationalist members of the community to join the RUC. I do not believe that argument stands up to examination, as the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said in moving the amendment, and as the noble Baroness said a few minutes ago. I think the Minister was quite right not to pursue that argument in this House and to leave out that sentence on Second Reading.
18
The noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, spoke of the importance of the morale of the RUC. I believe that morale is extremely important to the future of the agreement and to the future of Northern Ireland. Even if the agreement proceeds in the smoothest possible way, the high morale of the RUC will remain essential to future peace in the Province. This is, of course, a confidence-damaging measure as regards the RUC. I believe it is seen as such by many people who support the RUC, as well as by many members of the RUC itself.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, drew a comparison with the Garda oath, which was expanded later by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux. It is interesting to consider the Garda oath, although I do not think we should consider that the practice in the Republic in that regard should be followed in the north. We all know that the Garda oath reflects the greater political control that is exerted over the police in the Republic of Ireland than is exerted, or should be exerted, in any part of the United Kingdom. There is a different philosophy as regards the policing of the two different countries.
Many noble Lords and others have emphasised my next point on numerous occasions. We prefer the philosophy of the independence of the chief constable and the independence of the police from the political process. However, the position is not the same in the Republic. I do not necessarily say that either approach is more or less valid. Each country must choose the approach which it thinks best for itself. However, there is no doubt about the approach of the United Kingdom. I, for one, believe that it is the correct approach.
3.30 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs): My Lords, the effect of Amendment No. 1 would be to remove the requirement that every member of the police force be attested as a constable on appointment. I am somewhat surprised that the noble Lords, Lord Monson and Lord Molyneaux, would wish to proceed in this way. It is the established practice, not only in the UK but in many parts of the world, that every member of the police force be attested as a constable on appointment.
The office of constable is of ancient origins. The hallmark of the present day constable remains, as in previous centuries, his attestation. Until he is so attested, by making the appropriate declaration, he or she cannot hold the office of constable. One of the effects of this would be, for example, that RUC officers would not have a constable's power of arrest while off duty. In view of this I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
I turn to Amendment No. 5. I believe we are now getting to the core of the issue. All noble Lords who have taken part in this debate have referred to this amendment, implicitly or explicitly. As noble Lords will be aware, the Bill changes the declaration of office made by RUC constables to a form broadly similar to that used to affirm constables in office in Scotland. This measure is in line with other changes in recent years to oaths or declarations of office throughout the criminal

19
justice system. As noble Lords will know, for example, modernising changes have been made to the oaths taken by jurors and QCs.
Outdated and overly-complex language has been eliminated and clear, simple wording used. The new declaration states,
"I hereby do solemnly and sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of constable".
That is clear, simple wording. The role of the police in Northern Ireland—
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I hope the Minister will forgive me for interrupting. Does he agree that it could be just as simple and still contain the oath of allegiance to the Crown? That is the issue. We are perfectly happy with an amended and simpler statement; what is missing is the allegiance to the Crown. That is what we want to see put back in.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I said that in Scotland—where I believe these arguments have not arisen—the oath is similar to the one that I have read out. I shall deal later with the point that the noble Baroness has mentioned.
The Government have considered this matter carefully and have taken into account the views of, among others, the Police Authority for Northern Ireland. Indeed change was recommended by the Police Authority, the body responsible for putting forward the views of the community in Northern Ireland. The Government believe that the new form of declaration represents a sensible change clarifying what a police officer is undertaking when he or she takes up office.
Before I ask noble Lords to reject the amendment, I shall deal with some of the specific points that were made in the course of the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, suggested that implementing this provision might be postponed for 12 months to allow the Patten Commission to consider the matter. In a later amendment we shall discuss the question of an implementation date. I hope that we can deal with the matter then rather than at this point. I believe that the relevant amendment stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux.
Reference has been made to the Sovereign. Other noble Lords have referred to the Garda declaration in the Republic which concerns loyalty to the constitution. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, will not mind my chiding him, but I was surprised when he said that the RUC should adopt the same practices as the Garda. I believe I have quoted him accurately.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. However, I was saying exactly the opposite. We want to allow the Garda time to bring its requirements, affirmation and oath into the 20th century. That is all I am saying.
Lord Dubs: I am sorry if I misunderstood that. I apologise to the noble Lord. However, I understand that the constitutional relationship of the Garda to the
20
Irish state is not the same as in the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom. The Government want to make the best arrangements for Northern Ireland. It is the interests of Northern Ireland which determine the nature of this provision, as indeed is the case with the whole Bill.
As regards the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, I have already said that I shall discuss the commencement date when we discuss Amendment No. 4. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, asked about the police being subject to equal opportunities legislation. Currently the RUC is subject to fair employment legislation and equal opportunities legislation. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Blease, asked, why not wait for the findings of the Patten Commission? The Government regard this Bill as a foundation or paving provision. It puts into statute a number of structural changes on which it expects the commission on policing will want to build. It shows that sensible evolutionary change is possible and will produce real benefits within a finite timescale, providing essential reassurance for the community as a whole. These provisions were arrived at after extensive consultation, and there is widespread support for many of them. They include objective-setting, planning processes and complaints. Indeed, the text of the Good Friday agreement and the terms of reference for the independent commission were predicated on the passage of the Bill and its early implementation.
I am checking to see whether any other questions were put to me.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, while the Minister checks, perhaps I may inquire whether he believes that the reference to Her Majesty the Queen will somehow make a policeman less acceptable to the population. Does the fact that the ombudsman is to be appointed by Her Majesty—a specific provision in the Bill—weaken the acceptability of the Ombudsman?
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I do not accept that argument at all. As a debating point it is interesting, but in terms of substance I do not for one moment accept it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Park, suggested that this provision would somehow appease the IRA. Emphatically, we are not seeking to appease the IRA. We are seeking to achieve good and proper policing in Northern Ireland and to make the changes necessary to bring that about. I hope very much that the noble Baroness exaggerated when she said that there was demoralisation among serving RUC officers. The Government have given RUC officers many assurances. I believe that the RUC understands the changes that are taking place, why they are taking place, and that they are in the interests of the service as a whole. I appreciate the support given by the noble Lord, Lord Holme, when he said that the new oath is straightforward. I believe it has the particular merit of being simple.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, also talked about pre-empting the Patten Commission. I have dealt with the substance of that. Perhaps I may add to my remarks regarding the fact that the reference to Her Majesty in the oath is to be removed. We are seeking to ensure that all members of the community feel able to join the RUC

21
provided that they qualify. The tests are quite stringent. The belief is that by making this change we shall make it easier for some Catholics to join the RUC.
I accept the point made by several noble Lords that the main deterrent to Catholics joining the RUC has been intimidation, threats to their families and their homes. That is deplorable. It must be removed if there is to be any progress in Northern Ireland. Nevertheless, it may still deter some to have the oath that presently exists. The Government believe that the change will make the oath that much more acceptable to people. What we want is an RUC in Northern Ireland which has among it people from all the communities it serves. The RUC has served all communities valiantly and courageously over many years. That is why we are making these proposals. I invite the Committee to reject the amendment.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend, Lord Molyneaux and the noble Baroness, Lady Park, for their powerful support. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cope, on the Conservative Front Bench. As he said, the clause and the schedule in question are an example of pre-empting Patten. Why on earth should we be doing that?
I thought that just for once the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, and myself might find ourselves in agreement, but no such luck. The noble Lord said that it was important for the morale of the RUC to be sustained. If you want further to erode the morale of the RUC, Schedule 2 does exactly that. The noble Lord also complained that the oath in Northern Ireland had not been changed since 1836, whereas it had been changed in England and Wales. Very well, why not update the Northern Irish oath to bring it into line with that in England and Wales—a halfway house, so to speak, or less than a halfway house. Why knock out any reference to the monarchy altogether?
The noble Lord also implied that to pass these amendments would be in conflict with the Good Friday agreement. But it is wrong to imply that the Good Friday agreement requires the insertion of these words in the Bill. That is a job for the Patten Commission.
Finally, the noble Lord said that it was very important—
3.45 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. This is a difficult matter. However, will he concede that the essence of the Good Friday agreement is to find forms and institutions which have a legitimacy to which members of both communities can respond, rather than continuing to assert the primacy of the Protestant and unionist tradition?
Lord Monson: My Lords, so far as the police are concerned, that is a matter for the Patten Commission. It may take a different view from that taken so far by the Government. It may decide on a different form of oath altogether. I am disappointed that both noble Lords, speaking for the Liberal Democrats and for the
22
Government, seem so concerned to change everything so as to appeal to, and make life easier for, those with strong republican opinions, when there is no attempt south of the border to appeal to the few unionists who remain by making their life easier by changing oaths and so on. But so be it.
The Minister said that if we were to agree to Amendment No. 1, there would be no form of attestation whatever. That surprises me. The RUC is not being formed from scratch; it is already in existence. I should imagine that if Amendment No. 1 were agreed to, the oath would remain as part of the procedure. Perhaps I am wrong. The noble Lord has access to much greater expertise, so I shall have to study that point.
There are many noble Lords in the House but relatively few in the Chamber. Also, as the amendment seems to be defective, I shall to have look into it again. I shall therefore not press the amendment today. However, I reserve the right to return to the matter at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 64 [Regulations]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 34, line 3, leave out ("shall") and insert ("may").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is suggested that with this amendment we should also discuss Amendment No. 3. The rather interesting Clause 64 under which the Secretary of State may make certain regulations, and particularly subsection (2), under which the Secretary of State is required to make certain other regulations, brings into the debate the dreaded figure of Henry VIII to loom over us.
Amendment No. 2 suggests that the Secretary of State, instead of being obliged to make the regulations set out in subsection (2), should have the power to do so. It is a modest amendment; nevertheless, it seems worth bringing to your Lordships' attention. There are 14 parts to the regulations the Secretary of State is obliged to introduce under subsection (2). I am not sure that that amounts to 14 sets of regulations; certainly, however, there are 14 elements. I am not quite sure by when he would be obliged to bring them in; he is merely obliged to bring them in. Presumably that does not mean by the time of Royal Assent; perhaps the commencement Act will state when. That is odd when applied, for example, to paragraph (e) which states that the Secretary of State shall, by regulation, provide,
"for enabling the Ombudsman to dispense with any requirement",
of the Bill—not every requirement, but "any requirement". That seems to me to be an extraordinarily wide power.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, excuse me for interrupting, but the words are,
"any requirement of this Part",
of the Bill.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I beg your pardon. Yes, it is "any Part" of the Bill. If that is not what I said, it is what I should have said, and I accept the correction.

23
If all these sets of regulations are to be required from the Secretary of State, it would have been a good idea if some of them had been put in the primary legislation.
Amendment No. 3 goes particularly to paragraph (1) in subsection (2), which requires the Secretary of State to make regulations so that,
"the Chief Constable shall have power to delegate any functions conferred on him by or by virtue of this Part"
of the Bill—that is, the part dealing with the ombudsman. It seems to me odd that the Secretary of State must make regulations giving the chief constable the power to delegate. There are earlier clauses in the Bill which allow the chief constable to appoint someone to act in his place in various other circumstances. I am interested to know why it is regarded as essential that the Secretary of State should make regulations of this kind at this point and why these powers have not been put into the primary legislation instead of being left to regulations, thus obliging your Lordships' House, apart from anybody else, to consider all these matters again when the various sets of regulations come before us. An enormous number of sets of regulations regarding Northern Ireland flow from the overall structure of legislation in the Province and this Bill provides for an enormous increase in the number of such regulations.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I am happy to support the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Cope. His final point referred to the chief constable having power to delegate any functions. With great respect to the chief constable and his immediate subordinates, I believe that that is a provision that we ought to look at very closely. There are circumstances in which such a power could be undesirable. I am not thinking in this regard of any given chief constable or any given subordinate, but my experience in dealing with chief constables over decades, more latterly as a Privy Counsellor, has given me an insight into functions which are not apparent to the general public. There is, for example, the relationship with the Secretary of State and the minister responsible for security in the Northern Ireland Office. I imagine that that would not be the kind of situation that one would expect in the case of the Metropolitan Police.
To some extent, when faced with a crisis—and I have been at least on the fringes of many of them—the chief constable, the Secretary of State and the minister for security work as a kind of trio. Given their overlapping powers, I do not see how it could be otherwise. The Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary is in a real sense the chief security adviser to the Secretary of State. He has to a great extent—and the House may be a little alarmed by this news, although it should have been apparent—a degree of jurisdiction over the Army, which does not come under the Northern Ireland Office. Again, I am not thinking of personalities, but I take the view that it would be unwise to regard this situation as
24
comparable to that of a fairly minor constabulary anywhere else in Great Britain. We are dealing with a key appointment. The chief constable rightly has access to state secrets and is in close co-operation with the elected Secretary of State and the elected minister for security. We should consider carefully whether we want those onerous duties to be shared with a subordinate of the chief constable.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy for Amendment No. 2 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, to substitute "shall" in line 3 on page 34 with "may". I shall listen closely to the Minister's response as to why the mandatory verb is essential here.
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Cope, and I part company as regards Amendment No. 3 to delete lines 46 and 47. I think I may agree with the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux of Killead, on this point, although I am not sure that I am clear about the final line of his argument. These are onerous responsibilities, whether they are mandatory or conditional. I think that, as a matter of practical administrative procedure, it is unlikely that, should the Secretary of State need to make these regulations, he would not want the chief constable to have power to delegate some of the functions conferred on him.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, before I deal with Amendments Nos. 2 and 3, I should like to correct an error I made in dealing with Clause 64(2)(e) in Committee. Hansard was accurate and I was not.
Clause 64(2)(e) states that the Secretary of State shall by regulations provide,
"for enabling the Ombudsman to dispense with any requirement of this Part".
It replicates Article 19(2)(e) of the Police (Northern Ireland) Order 1987.
In Committee I said that it would enable the ombudsman to ask the Secretary of State to remove a provision if it was not working well or was particularly onerous. That is not, I am afraid, entirely accurate. The subsection is targeted at the Secretary of State regulating to enable dispensation by the ombudsman from the full rigours of the part of the Bill. It would not be used to remove a whole provision.
It may be helpful if I give your Lordships an example under the existing legislation. The example will undoubtedly be repeated in regulations under the Bill. Under Regulation 17 of the Royal Ulster Constabulary (Complaints etc) Regulations 1988 the commission may, if requested to do so by the appropriate authority (which means the chief constable or police authority),
"dispense with the requirements mentioned in paragraph (1)".
In other words, where a complaint is anonymous, repetitious or vexatious, or it is not reasonably practicable to complete the investigation of a complaint, then the commission, on application by the appropriate authority, can decide that the requirements of the order should be dispensed with. The

25
investigation would be curtailed. Obviously this makes sense. The provision would apply, for example, if a complainant made the same allegation several times or failed to provide any evidence to back up the complaint. The ombudsman may conclude in these circumstances that there is no purpose in a full investigation. The regulation-making power is, therefore, necessary, and has been used in the past. I apologise to noble Lords for not describing its purpose accurately in Committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, has tabled two amendments to Clause 64. First, he seeks to substitute "may" for "shall" in Clause 64(2). The effect of this would be to make it purely discretionary for the Secretary of State to make regulations for the procedures to be followed by the ombudsman when dealing with a complaint. However, the whole ombudsman system would not work unless regulations of the type listed in Clause 64(2) are made. It must be a duty on the Secretary of State to provide regulations for the handling of complaints, informal resolution, and so on. Indeed, the current formulation is the same as that in the Police (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 for the Independent Commission for Police Complaints and that in the Police Act 1996 for the Police Complaints Authority. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
I now turn to the second amendment, which seeks to delete the provision in Clause 64(2)(1) allowing the chief constable to delegate his functions under this Part of the Bill to another senior officer. I mentioned this point in Committee. This provision is necessary, as otherwise the Chief Constable would have to do everything personally. It is not a new provision. It is seen in Article 19 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 and Section 81 of the Police Act 1996.
The power has been used in regulations deriving from the 1987 Police (Northern Ireland) Order. The RUC (Complaints, etc) Regulations 1988 provide that the Chief Constable may delegate the provisions in Articles 4 to 14 of that order, which relate to the handling and investigation of complaints and disciplinary proceedings to the deputy chief constable or an assistant chief constable. The regulations also provide that the chief constable may delegate all or any of his functions or duties in relation to the informal resolution of complaints to a member of at least the rank of chief inspector.
Perhaps I may turn briefly to the specific points made by the noble Lord, Lord Cope. He asked whether we need 14 sets of regulations. We do not believe that we do. But it is envisaged that there will be a number of regulations covering the framework for dealing with complaints. That is a similar arrangement to the existing one found under the Police (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 for the Independent Commission for Police Complaints. The regulations will commence when that part of the Bill commences.
The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, suggested that it may be undesirable for a chief constable to delegate. But the power is for the Secretary of State to
26
make regulations on complaints issues. The examples I mentioned show the limited extent of the delegation that we intend. I am sure your Lordships will agree that the regulation-making power serves an important purpose and I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
4 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lord, before my noble friend sits down, I apologise for not even whispering notice that I would make this point. However, the House did not know that he would give that explanation of the meaning of one of these provisions when he gave his explanation in Committee.
Am I not right in thinking that some consideration ought to be given to the wording of paragraph (e) of Clause 64, which states that the Secretary of State shall provide regulations,
"for enabling the Ombudsmen to dispense with any requirement of this Part"?
The argument that my noble friend worthily put forward relates to paragraph (1), which says that,
"the Chief Constable shall have power to delegate any functions conferred on him by or by virtue of this Part".
Would it not be perfectly proper for the ombudsman to say that he can dispense with that requirement because it is a "requirement of this Part" of the Bill? Perhaps the Minister will look at that point between now and Third Reading.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for raising that matter. I shall look into it rather than give an answer today.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, the Minister was kind enough to correct one error that he made in the course of the Grand Committee proceedings. As a matter of fact, there was another to which I should perhaps draw his attention. It appears in Hansard of 8th June at col. 31 and relates to the fact that the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee considered the regulation-making powers in this Bill and reported that it was content, save for one small point in relation to Clause 64(2). In fact, it was in relation to Schedule l paragraph 2(2). That was the power which was criticised, though not very strongly. That is why I did not pursue it.
The Minister said a few minutes ago that he was referring to Clause 64(2)(1); I believe he meant Clause 64(2)(1). It is difficult to see in print the difference between a small "1" and a large "1". For the sake of those who might read our proceedings I should like to correct that.
Having said that, I am not entirely happy about the vast amount of matters which have been left to regulation in the Bill. That is part of an undesirable tendency which I endeavoured—not very successfully—to combat while a Minister in the other place. Nevertheless, I do not wish to press the amendments at this point and beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 2.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Clause 75 [Commencement]:
Lord Molyneaux of Killead Lord Molyneaux of Killead moved Amendment No. 4.
Leave out Clause 75.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 4, which seeks to delete Clause 75, is a probing amendment. It provides an opportunity for your Lordships to examine the relationship between the provisions of the Bill and the Patten Commission.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, drew attention to what appeared to be a never-ending stream of reports. We would be doing much to stabilise the situation if we could guarantee a kind of closed season for some years, to allow already approved changes in legislation to become established before we pull up the plant yet again to see how the roots are getting on.
I take the view that there is adequate provision in the Bill to authorise reporting arrangements without overlaying them with yet another layer in the form of the Patten Commission. I sometimes wonder what would have been the reaction of Londoners in September 1940—the climax of the Battle of Britain—if Churchill had established a commission to examine the structures, methods and attitudes of Fighter Command and to take account of the sensitivities of the Luftwaffe bomber crews. Such a proposal may well have been regarded by residents of the South-East generally as ingratitude for the protection provided by the few in those critical months.
In Committee I expressed reservations about the two sets of inquiries proceeding in tandem. The present Police (Northern Ireland) Bill before us is to be implemented as and when the Secretary of State feels it desirable, without at this stage any apparent guidelines as to the timing. While I remain uneasy about the possibility of the Patten Commission producing proposals for measures which will conflict with this Bill, to some extent I was reassured by the reply of the Minister in Committee to my question as to which of the two—the Patten Commission or the Bill—would carry the greater weight. I welcomed the declaration by the Minister on that occasion that Patten is not empowered to override Parliament. I am grateful for that assurance, as I am sure are other noble Lords. That reply clarifies the relative positions and is therefore helpful to all concerned.
In Committee, the Minister was also good enough to explain that it would not be possible to delay Royal Assent given that Patten would not report for around another year. For the avoidance of uncertainty, perhaps it will be possible to reduce that timetable for Patten—a point which seemed to be misunderstood in the earlier debate. That would give the Irish Government time to modernise their rules, declarations and oaths regarding their security forces. In addition, it may be possible for
28
the Secretary of State, armed with Clause 75(2) terminology, to
"appoint different days for different purposes and for different provisions",
to ensure that there exists a degree of cross-reference between the mechanisms of this Bill (shortly to be approved by Parliament), and the thrust of the Patten Commission. That may be a useful safety device when the Secretary of State comes to drafting the "principles for policing" as provided for under Clause 37. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: My Lords, though I realise that this is only a probing amendment, I fully understand my noble friend's reasons for moving it. As I said when moving Amendment No. 1, it is the steady drip, drip erosion of the ethos of the RUC which is so demoralising. New legislation seems to arise every few months. Something in the Minister's voice when he was replying to Amendment No. 1 suggested that he might look favourably on the idea of postponing the coming into operation of parts of the Bill, in particular, Schedule 2. I hope I am right in that assumption.
If the Government refuse to yield on anything, they will confirm the growing impression that 90 per cent. of the concessions made in Northern Ireland in recent months, together with those in train, are being made by the unionist community, using the term "unionist community" in its broadest sense. Such an imbalance is not a recipe for long-term peace.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, this Bill turns out to be badly timed. I do not think that is entirely the Government's fault. Indeed, the reasons why it has turned out that way are to some extent to the Government's credit because they flow from the successful agreement reached on Good Friday.
The Bill has been a long time in gestation and has now reached its final stages. But it will not come into effect until next year, and by next summer we shall have a report from the Patten Commission which will go over a great deal of this ground again, judging by the enormously long terms of reference given to the Patten Commission. Those terms of reference include the requirement that its proposals should be designed to ensure that the scope for structured co-operation with the Garda Siochana and other police forces is addressed. I am not sure exactly what "the scope for structured co-operation … is addressed" amounts to, but clearly that is one aspect of it.
At Second Reading in another place the Minister of State said that the Bill might be amended during the course of its passage to allow for any of the effects of the agreement, if an agreement were reached. It is difficult to see that that can be done now unless the coming into effect of the Bill is postponed for a time so as to make sure that we know what the Patten Commission recommends. The Minister seemed to be hinting slightly that the provisions would be brought into effect in different ways. Therefore, I look forward to hearing what he has to say in response to this interesting amendment.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, the effect of the amendment would be to delete Clause 75 and thus bring the Bill into force immediately on Royal Assent. I think that is contrary to the noble Lord's intention, which is to ask why we are putting forward the Bill at this time. Technically, his amendment is likely to have the opposite result of the one intended.
I am aware of the noble Lord's concerns, which he articulated during our debate in Committee, about implementing the provisions of the Bill in advance of receipt of the findings of the independent commission. Indeed, I recall that he suggested that Royal Assent should be withheld until the Patten Commission had reported. In addressing this concern I cannot overemphasise the importance of the Bill as a clarifying measure. As I have said on a number of occasions in the House, the provisions in the Bill are designed to establish a more efficient, effective, accountable and acceptable police service in Northern Ireland. The Bill contains a number of significant provisions which I believe it would not be proper to delay until the Patten Commission had reported.
Let me remind your Lordships of one or two of those significant provisions. The Bill preserves the operational independence of the chief constable; it preserves and more clearly focuses the role of the police authority; and it introduces new police objective setting and planning mechanisms. In addition, it enables financial responsibility for the day-to-day management of policing to pass to the chief constable from the police authority; it provides for the establishment of a new independent system for investigating complaints against the police; and indeed there are many other important provisions.
I think it would be remiss of the Government not to proceed with the Bill and to give effect to it. After all, we do not know what the Patten Commission will propose and we are liable to delay any changes for a great deal of time because, as the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, said, the Patten Commission will make recommendations. It is likely that to give effect to those, if the Government agreed with the Patten Commission, there would have to be further legislation. That is a quite lengthy process so we would be delaying matters for a long time if we were to go down the path suggested by the noble Lord.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has said that the Bill will be implemented in April 1999. The Patten Commission is to report in the summer of 1999. To convert the Patten Commission's conclusions into legislation, if the Government were so minded to agree with them, means that we would be talking about another year and a half or longer. I believe that that would not be the right way forward. The Secretary of State is very anxious to make proper progress.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, said that 90 per cent. of the Bill's concessions were to nationalists.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am sorry if I did not speak clearly enough for the noble Lord. I was not talking
30
specifically about the Bill; I was talking about the concessions made generally in Northern Ireland over the past few months and those that are in train at the moment.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I do not agree that the majority of the concessions have been made to nationalists. I think that concessions have been made fairly even-handedly across both communities. However, I think it would be trespassing on the time of the House this afternoon if I were to be tempted to go down that path and try to elaborate. I think we ought to leave that point for another day.
There was widespread support for the Bill's provisions as it left another place. Its aim is, after all, to provide effective and fair policing for all people in Northern Ireland. I believe that is the right way forward. I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment, particularly as it will not have the effect which he intends it to have.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, the noble Lord will recollect that in my opening words I said that this was a probing amendment and that we wanted to discover the Government's thinking on this matter. It is very interesting and reassuring that the Secretary of State has given a target date for the implementation of nearly all of the provisions, because at earlier stages there was an implication that it would be a never-ending process and that parts would be introduced from time to time without any coherent plan.
I derived great reassurance from what the Minister appeared to be saying in his final words—I do not want to put words in his mouth—that the Government hope to bring the legislation into effect and have it in place. Then there was something he did not say but I would say. I hope that, that being the case—the will of Parliament having been expressed on these matters and the Bill having been carried through both Houses and receiving Royal Assent—the Patten Commission might respect the will of Parliament and would not lightly embark on changes which would be likely to cut clean across what your Lordships' House and the other place have put in place.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may say, for the avoidance of doubt, that the Patten Commission has a free hand to decide the best way forward. I would not wish to say anything to, as it were, limit the freedom of the Patten Commission to deal with its terms of reference.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification. However, I should have thought that, your Lordships' House having given the final seal of approval to this legislation, it would not entirely welcome a suggestion from the Patten Commission that it should overturn its previous conclusions just because the commission had produced proposals which ran counter to what we have put in place today. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 [Form of declaration]:
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]

National Lottery Bill [H.L.]
4.19 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[The page and line refer to Bill (148) as first printed for the Commons.]

COMMONS AMENDMENT
1 Clause 1, leave out Clause 1.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. In doing so I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 12. The Government are determined to ensure that the lottery is given the most effective regulation possible to provide the objectivity, independence and transparency that the public rightly demands. The Bill, when it left this House, recognised the importance of widening the experience and expertise brought to bear on the selection of the lottery operator. It made provision for an advisory panel to help the director general with that task. But we have looked at this again and, particularly in the light of recent events, the Secretary of State has concluded that there is more that we can do to ensure that the public can have confidence in the independence and objectivity of the regulator. In particular, a move away from a focus on a particular individual will help to remove any possible criticism as regards conflicts of interest, actual or perceived, which threaten effective regulation.
I should say at this point that none of what is proposed should be taken as any criticism of the acting director general or his staff, whose professionalism and commitment are not in question. These amendments therefore replace the post of director general and the advisory panel currently provided for in Clause 1 and Schedule 1 to the Bill with a new national lottery commission. That commission will consist of five members whom the Secretary of State will appoint. It will be a permanent body which will take on the same statutory functions and duties as the director general. Therefore, its role will be to ensure that the lottery is run and promoted with all due propriety and that the interests of all players are protected and, subject to those duties, to do its best to ensure the best possible return for the good causes.
The commission will be able to choose one of its members as a chair to run meetings and to act as spokesman for no more than a year at a time. No member will be reappointed immediately so the responsibility is rotated between members. I appreciate that noble Lords might find an analogy with the rotating presidency of the former Republic of Yugoslavia, but nevertheless, I hope that they will put such thoughts out of their mind and recognise the appropriateness of this solution.
32
This measure will avoid focusing attention and influence undesirably on any individual. The new commission will have in its armoury the power already contained within the Bill to fine licence holders. That fills a gap highlighted by the Select Committee on Public Accounts. Any fines levied will go to the good causes and not to the Treasury. The power to fine will apply in respect of existing licences as well as future awards. The commission will be supported in its work by the existing Oflot staff. The amendments will provide for their employment by the commission on the same terms and conditions as they currently hold, save that the commission will not be a Crown body and so its employees will not be civil servants. I believe that these provisions ensure a lottery which will inspire full public confidence. I commend these amendments to the House.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of these changes, but I put on record my disquiet at the practice of legislating on the hoof. No hint of these amendments was given when the Bill passed through Committee nor when it was read a second time in the other place. The Government only introduced the necessary amendments in Committee in the other place, I believe, last month.
As the noble Lord stated, the intention was to restore public confidence in the regulatory system following events surrounding the resignation of Mr. Peter Davis, the previous director general. But it would be a great pity if governments felt that they had to legislate every time a regulator or regulatory system was criticised in the press. As everybody knows, public confidence in the regulator fluctuates with every newspaper headline. Who now remembers the events which gave rise to these amendments?
My present purpose is only to point out that the regulatory system for a natural monopoly should not be changed in response to passing events because any change in the regulatory structure in one sector is bound to have knock-on effects on the regulatory regime as a whole. The amendments introduced by the Government seem to pre-empt the consultation envisaged by the White Paper, A Fair Deal for Consumers: modernising the framework for utility regulations, published in March 1998. In that document the Government put forward three possible models for regulation as an alternative to an individual regulator. They were a statutory advisory committee to assist each regulator; the replacement of individual regulators by small executive boards and the replacement of individual regulators by small commissions. In these amendments the Government seem to have opted for the third model. Is this now the Government's preferred model for all monopoly regulation or will there be a different regime for each sector? What about the promised consultation? I hope that the noble Lord will answer these questions.
I am not particularly happy about the procedure for rotating the chairmanship of the commission around the five members every 12 months, quite apart from the example to which the noble Lord alluded. Is the rotation

33
also intended to be a general model for the regulatory system applying to other monopolies? If so, I see some disadvantages, not least the danger that it will produce a weak regulator and not a robust one, with everyone shuffling off responsibility to another member of the commission. I should be grateful if the noble Lord would answer the questions that I have raised.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, for his response to these amendments, although he will not be surprised to know that I do not agree with the criticisms that he has made. He began by criticising us for legislating on the hoof, as he put it, with amendments which were first introduced in Committee in another place. The Government's intention to substitute a commission for the director general was in fact announced by the Secretary of State at Second Reading and therefore another place had a full opportunity to consider the issues involved.
As I am sure the noble Lord will recognise, it is not unheard of for government amendments to appear in legislation as it reaches the second House for consideration. Indeed, if there were no such possibility there would not be much point in having a bicameral legislature. I do not apologise for the fact that the Government have had second thoughts. The only question in my mind is whether they are better than the first thoughts. I propose these amendments on their merits and not on any analogy with the Yugoslav presidency or anybody else.
I do not accept the criticism that the Government are committed to legislating every time there is criticism in the press. The noble Lord will recognise that the issue of the relationship between the director general of Oflot and Camelot was rightly taken pretty seriously in the press as the Bill was going through Parliament. It would have been irresponsible for us not to think about that relationship not just in terms of individuals, but also in terms of what better security there might be for the objectivity, independence and transparency that we Want.
The noble Lord referred to the Green Paper on utilities, quite rightly and quite legitimately, but he acknowledged that what the lottery commission proposed is in line with one of the three models in the Green Paper. He asked me then whether we were going to take this proposal as pre-empting consultation on other utilities: the answer quite clearly is no. The National Lottery is different from utilities such as water or electricity, and it does not establish a precedent. If the noble Lord is concerned about a precedent I can reassure him, I hope, that no precedent is intended. The Government are considering and will consider the responses to the Green Paper on utilities and will proceed with all due propriety in that respect.
The noble Lord was worried about the proposal for the rotation of chairmanship and whether this would lead to weak regulation. I can only say that it is not the Government's intention to establish a principle of weak regulation. Provided we have members of the commission who represent expertise in the running of lotteries, gambling more generally, and the interests
34
of players, and who have the integrity which is necessary and which is indeed the essential pre-condition for membership of the commission, I see no reason to suppose that these ladies and gentlemen will not act very effectively as a commission to control the National Lottery.
There are other examples of commissions: for example, the Radio Authority and the Independent Television Commission. Admittedly the idea of a rotating chairmanship is more unusual, but the Government rest their case for these changes on the merits of the case rather than on any analogies with other bodies or indeed on any past history in the relationship between Oflot and the licence holder for the National Lottery. On that basis, I commend the amendment to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
4.30 p.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
2 After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
("The Director General and the National Lottery Commission
REPLACEMENT OF DIRECTOR GENERAL BY NATIONAL LOTTERY COMMISSION
.—(1) There shall cease to be an office of Director General of the National Lottery.
(2) In consequence of subsection (1) above, in the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 (in this Act referred to as "the 1993 Act") section 3 and Schedule 2 (which relate to the Director General of the National Lottery') shall cease to have effect.
(3) After section 3 of the 1993 Act there shall be inserted—
"The National Lottery Commission.
3A.—(1) There shall be a body corporate known as the National Lottery Commission.
(2) Schedule 2A makes provision in relation to the Commission."
(4) On the day on which this subsection comes into force under section 26(2A) below, the functions conferred or imposed on the Director General of the National Lottery by or under the 1993 Act (including any functions so conferred or imposed by virtue of this Act) shall, by virtue of this subsection, be transferred to the National Lottery Commission.
(5) Schedule (Replacement of Director General by Commission: supplementary provisions) to this Act (which makes provision supplemental to, or consequential on, this section) shall have effect.").
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: 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 McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
3 After Clause 4, insert the following new clause—
ACCESS BY COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL TO DOCUMENTS ETC
(".—(1) Section 33 of the 1993 Act (accounts of Secretary of State and National Debt Commissioners) shall be amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (3) there shall be inserted—
"(4) For the purpose of exercising his examination function in relation to any accounts prepared under subsection (1), the Comptroller and Auditor General—

(a) shall have a right of access at all reasonable times to any documents which he reasonably requires which are in the custody or under the control of any section 5 licensee; and

(b) shall have a right to require from any officer or employee of any section 5 licensee, or from the auditors of any section 5 licensee, an explanation of, or information relating to, any such documents;

but a section 5 licensee shall not, by virtue only of this subsection, be a body to which section 6 of the National Audit Act 1983 applies.
(5) For the purpose of—

(a) exercising his examination function in relation to any accounts prepared under subsection (1), or

(b) deciding whether, or to what extent, to exercise any right conferred by subsection (4),

the Comptroller and Auditor General shall have regard to any information which the Director General has obtained from any section 5 licensee and which is relevant to the exercise of that function.
(6) Where, in exercising his examination function in relation to any accounts prepared under subsection (1), the Comptroller and Auditor General obtains any information which gives him grounds to believe that a section 5 licensee has, or may have, contravened any of the conditions of its licence under section 5, the Comptroller and Auditor General shall as soon as practicable disclose that information to the Director General.
(7) A section 5 licensee shall be under a duty—

(a) to permit the Comptroller and Auditor General to exercise the right conferred by subsection (4)(a); and

(b) to do all that may be reasonably practicable to secure that any person who under subsection (4)(b) is required to provide an explanation of, or information relating to, any document complies with that requirement;

and any breach of that duty shall be actionable at the suit of the Comptroller and Auditor General.
(8) The right of access to documents conferred by subsection (4)(a) includes a right to take copies of or make extracts from documents.
(9) In this section any reference to documents includes a reference to information held by means of a computer or in any other electronic form; and in the case of information so held the right of access conferred by subsection (4)(a) includes a right of access to, and to take copies of, that information in a visible and legible form.
(10) In this section—
"examination function", in relation to the Comptroller and Auditor General, means his function under subsection (3);
"section 5 licensee" means a body which holds or has held a licence under section 5."
(3) This section has effect in relation to accounts prepared under section 33(1) of the 1993 Act so far as they relate to periods beginning on or after 1st April 1999.").
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3, which stands by itself. This amendment will allow the Comptroller and Auditor General access to the records of the lottery operator for the narrow purposes of auditing the National Lottery Distribution Fund but it will not set any general precedent for access to private bodies within regulated sectors.
This amendment will allow the Comptroller and Auditor General to examine documents held by the section 5 licence holder—that is, at the present time Camelot—and require written and oral explanations of them when carrying out his functions of examining, certifying and reporting on the accounts of the National Lottery Distribution Fund. The amendment is intended to meet the concerns indicated by the Public Accounts Committee in its 20th Report in 1996–97. The Government accepted that necessary access sufficient to complete the audit of the National Lottery Distribution Fund was appropriate in their response to the Public Accounts Committee in July 1997. The change is being introduced now, after careful consideration between other government departments and the National Audit Office. Because of the need for wide consultation it was not possible to introduce this amendment earlier, and I apologise to noble Lords that it was not possible for them to review the clause in the Grand Committee.
The work to be carried out by the Comptroller and Auditor General will be complementary to the regulatory work currently conducted by the Director General of the National Lottery. In drafting the amendment, we are mindful that the extra compliance costs it creates should be modest. As the Minister made clear in another place, it ensures that the Comptroller and Auditor General has a duty to take into account the work undertaken by the director general and the documents available to him through Oflot. We believe that this change, which has been welcomed by the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee of the other place, will reinforce transparency in the audit of the National Lottery Distribution Fund, will add to the public confidence in the lottery and ensure greater parliamentary accountability for the sums due to good causes. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, this amendment extends the control of the public auditor, as the noble Lord has just explained, over a private company. We did not raise any objection to that in the other place and I do not propose to do so now, but I would like again to put on record a couple of disquieting thoughts.
First of all, have the Government considered that this amendment may have some compliance costs and indeed may impose compliance costs on the licensee? Have they formed any estimate of what those costs

37
might be? Such costs, of course, come out of the profits and ultimately out of the amount of money available for good causes.
Secondly, we are worried about how the amendment will work in practice. Is it likely to lead to litigation as to which documents the Comptroller and Auditor General may require? We are all in favour of transparency but again I would point out that there are no parallel rights of access by the Comptroller and Auditor General to the documents of the privatised utilities. Why should there be extended access in this particular case? I shall be interested to hear what the noble Lord has to say.
A very much smaller point arises in subsection (5) which says that,
"the Comptroller and Auditor General shall have regard to any information which the Director General has obtained from any section 5 licensee".
Is that correct? I would have thought that both here and in subsection (6) the reference should be to the commission, but I am not familiar with the exact drafting convention.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his general support for the amendment, and I acknowledge that it is entirely proper for him to raise these matters. First, as regards the issue of compliance costs, the present situation is that the Comptroller and Auditor General concentrates his audit efforts on the department and on Oflot. Subsection (5) of the amendment provides for him to take account of the work of the director general so as to reduce the scope for duplication of effort.
Broadly speaking, I think it can be said that he will be auditing the same things, but if this amendment is agreed to he will be auditing them directly from the documents held by the licence holder rather than doing it at second hand through the figures from Oflot. But in total the audit procedure will not be significantly more complicated. Of course the noble Lord is right. There will be some additional costs, but we believe, as does the Comptroller and Auditor General, that they will be modest.
The department has proposed that, together with the director general and Camelot, it should discuss with the National Audit Office the way in which this clause is going to be made to work in order to ensure that there is no duplication and also to ensure that there is no burden which has not been anticipated on anyone. I do not see why there should be any need to go to litigation. The Comptroller and Auditor General will have access to all that he needs to conduct his audit. All sorts of bodies are used to the idea of the Comptroller and Auditor General having access to their papers. The Government are confident that the various parties will work closely together.
Subsection (5) of the proposed new clause, which is Amendment No. 3, specifically provides for the Comptroller and Auditor General to take account of the work of the director general. It minimises the extent to which Camelot, the licence-holder, will be bothered. I am referring to the director general and to Oflot, but
38
when the amendments about the commission come into force, which will be in the early part of next year, the references that I have made will be updated accordingly.
I acknowledge the appropriateness of the noble Lord's concerns but, for the reasons that I have given, I believe them to be minimal. I commend the amendment to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
4 Clause 26, page 22, line 21, at end insert—
("(2A) The following provisions of this Act, namely—

(a) section (Replacement of Director General by National Lottery Commission),

(b) Schedule (Replacement of Director General by Commission: supplementary provisions), and

(c) Part I of Schedule 5 and section 25 so far as relating to that Part of that Schedule,

shall come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may appoint by order made by statutory instrument; and different days may be so appointed for different purposes.").
5 Page 22, line 26, after ("and") insert ("Part II of").
6 Page 22, line 31, at end insert—
("(4A) The power conferred by subsection (2A) above to make an order includes power to make incidental, consequential, supplemental or transitional provision or savings (including power to amend enactments).").
7 Page 22, leave out lines 33 to 36.
8 Schedule 1, leave out Schedule 1.
9 After Schedule 1, insert the following new schedule—

SCHEDULE
REPLACEMENT OF DIRECTOR GENERAL BY COMMISSION: SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS
PART I

  TRANSFERS ETC
  Interpretation
  1. In this Part of this Schedule—
  "the appointed day" means the day on which subsection (4) of the principal section comes into force under section 26(2A) of this Act;
  "the Commission" means the National Lottery Commission;
  "the Director General" means the Director General of the National Lottery;
  "instrument" includes orders, rules, regulations, schemes, licences, agreements and other documents;
  "the principal section" means section (Replacement of Director General by National Lottery Commission) of this Act.
  Transfer of property, rights and liabilities
  2. On the appointed day, there shall by virtue of this paragraph be transferred to the Commission any property, rights or liabilities to which, immediately before that day, the Director General was entitled or subject in connection with any functions transferred to the Commission by the principal section.
  Transfer of staff
  3.—(1) This paragraph applies to any person who, immediately before the appointed day, is employed by virtue of paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 to the 1993 Act.
  (2) Any contract of employment under which a person to whom this paragraph applies is so employed shall have effect as from the appointed day as if it had originally been made between him and the Commission.
  (3) Without prejudice to sub-paragraph (2) above—

  (a) all the rights, powers, duties and liabilities of the employer under or in connection with a contract to which that sub-paragraph applies shall by virtue of that sub-paragraph be transferred to the Commission on the appointed day, and

  (b) anything done before that day by or in relation to the employer in respect of that contract or the employee shall be deemed from that day to have been done by or in relation to the Commission.

  (4) Sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) above are without prejudice to any right of an employee to terminate his contract of employment if his working conditions are changed substantially to his detriment; but such a change shall not be taken to have occurred by reason only of the change in employer effected by sub-paragraph (2) above.
  (5) In sub-paragraph (4) above, the reference to an employee's working conditions includes a reference to any rights (whether accrued or contingent) under any pension or superannuation scheme of which he was a member by virtue of his employment immediately before the appointed day.
  Construction of references to the Director General
  4. Any enactment or instrument passed or made before the appointed day shall have effect, so far as necessary for the purposes of, or in consequence of, the transfers effected by the principal section and paragraphs 2 and 3 above, as if any reference to the Director General were a reference to the Commission.
  Continuing validity of past acts
  5.—(1) Nothing in any other provision of the principal section or this Schedule shall affect the validity of anything done by or in relation to the Director General before the coming into force of that provision.
  (2) Anything (including legal proceedings) which immediately before the appointed day is in the process of being done by or in relation to the Director General may, if it relates to any of the functions, property, rights or liabilities transferred by the principal section or paragraph 2 or 3 above, be continued by or in relation to the Commission.
  (3) Any approval, authorisation, consent, delegation, direction, licence or appointment given, granted or made or other thing whatever done by the Director General for the purposes of any of the functions transferred by the principal section shall, if in force immediately before the appointed day, continue in force and have effect as if similarly given, granted, made or done by the Commission.
  Final report and accounts of the Director General
  6.—(1) As respects any time on or after the appointed day, the duties imposed on the Director General in relation to—

  (a) accounts, and

  (b) the making of a report under section 14 of the 1993 Act,

  in respect of his last financial year, or any preceding financial year for which those duties have not been discharged, shall be discharged by the Commission.
  (2) Any reference in this paragraph to the Director General's last financial year is a reference to the financial year beginning with the 1st April last preceding the appointed day.
  (3) The duties imposed on the Commission by sub-paragraph (1) above shall be discharged by them as if the Director General's last financial year ended with the day preceding the appointed day (if it would not in fact do so).
  (4) The property transferred to the Commission by virtue of paragraph 2 above shall include the records of the Director General.
  (5) For the purposes of this paragraph, the amendments of section 14 of the 1993 Act made by paragraph 13 below shall be disregarded.
  (6) In this paragraph "financial year" means the twelve months beginning with 1st April in any year and ending with the 31st March next following.

PART II
  CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMISSION
  7. After Schedule 2 to the 1993 Act there shall be inserted—
SECTION 3A
  SCHEDULE 2A

    THE NATIONAL LOTTERY COMMISSION
    Status and capacity
    1.—(1) The Commission shall not be regarded as the servant or agent of the Crown or as enjoying any status, immunity or privilege of the Crown.
    (2) The members and employees of the Commission shall not be regarded as civil servants and the Commission's property shall not be regarded as property of, or held on behalf of, the Crown.
    (3) The Commission may for the purpose of enabling them to exercise their functions acquire and dispose of land.
    (4) It shall be within the capacity of the Commission as a body corporate created by statute to do such things and enter into such transactions as are incidental or conducive to the discharge of their functions under this Act.
    Membership
    2.—(1) The Commission shall consist of five members, all of whom shall be appointed by the Secretary of State.
    (2) Before appointing a person to be a member, the Secretary of State shall satisfy himself that that person will have no such financial or other interest as is likely to affect prejudicially the discharge by him of his functions as a member.
    (3) The Secretary of State shall also satisfy himself from time to time with respect to every member that he has no such interest as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (2).
    (4) Any person who is, or whom the Secretary of State proposes to appoint to be, a member shall, whenever requested by the Secretary of State to do so, furnish him with such information as the Secretary of State considers necessary for the performance by him of his duties under sub-paragraphs (2) and (3).
    Tenure of office
    3.—(1) Members shall hold and vacate office in accordance with their terms of appointment, subject to the following provisions.
    (2) Any appointment of a member shall be for a term no longer than five years.
    (3) A member may resign his membership by giving written notice to the Secretary of State.
    (4) A person who ceases to be a member shall be eligible for re-appointment.
    (5) The Secretary of State may by notice in writing to the member concerned remove from office a member who—

    (a) has been absent from three or more consecutive meetings of the Commission without their prior approval,

    (b) has become bankrupt, has made an arrangement with his creditors, has had his estate sequestrated, has granted a trust deed for his creditors or has made a composition contract with his creditors, or

    (c) is, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, unable or unfit to perform his duties as a member.

    Chairman
    4.—(1) The members of the Commission shall select one of their number to be the chairman of the Commission.
    (2) A person's term of office as chairman shall be no longer than twelve months.
    (3) A person may resign as chairman by giving written notice to the other members.
    (4) If the chairman ceases to be a member he shall also cease to be chairman.
    (5) A member who ceases to be the chairman shall again become eligible for selection as chairman after the expiration of a period equal to that for which he was last chairman.
    Remuneration and allowances
    5.—(1) The Commission may pay such remuneration, and such travelling and other allowances, to a member of the Commission as the Secretary of State may determine in the case of the member.
    (2) Where the Secretary of State so determines in the case of a member of the Commission, the Commission shall—

    (a) pay to or in respect of him such pension, allowances or gratuities, or

    (b) make such payments towards the provision of a pension, allowances or gratuities to or in respect of him,

    as the Secretary of State may determine.
    (3) If the Secretary of State determines that there are special circumstances that make it right for a person ceasing to be a member of the Commission to receive compensation, the Commission may pay to him such compensation as the Secretary of State may determine.
    Staff
    6.—(1) There shall be a Chief Executive of the Commission, who shall be appointed by the Commission as an employee of theirs.
    (2) The Chief Executive shall be responsible to the Commission for the general exercise of the Commission's functions.
    (3) Subject to any directions given to them by the Secretary of State with respect to the number of persons who may be employed by the Commission, the Commission may appoint such other employees as they think fit.
    (4) Subject to any directions given to the Commission by the Secretary of State, the Chief Executive and any other employees shall be employed on such terms and conditions (including terms and conditions as to remuneration) as the Commission think fit.
    (5) Service as an employee of the Commission shall be included in the kinds of employment to which a scheme under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 can apply.
    (6) Accordingly, in the Superannuation Act 1972, in Schedule 1 (kinds of employment etc referred to in section 1) the following entry shall be inserted at the appropriate place among the entries under the heading "Royal Commissions and other Commissions"—
    "National Lottery Commission".
    (7) The Commission shall pay to the Minister for the Civil Service, at such times as that Minister may direct, such sums as that Minister may determine in respect of the increase attributable to sub-paragraphs (5) and (6) in the sums payable out of money provided by Parliament under the Superannuation Act 1972.
    Proceedings
    7.—(1) The Commission may regulate their own procedure and that of any of their committees (and in particular may specify a quorum for meetings).
    (2) The validity of any proceedings of the Commission shall not be affected—

    (a) by any vacancy among the members or in the office of chairman, or

    (b) by any defect in the appointment or selection of any person as a member or as chairman of the Commission.

    Delegation
    8.—(1) Anything authorised or required by or under any enactment to be done by the Commission may be done—

    (a) by any member or employee of the Commission who has been authorised for the purpose, whether generally or specially, by the Commission: or

    (b) by any committee of the Commission which has been so authorised and whose membership consists of—

    (i) members of the Commission; or

    (ii) one or more members of the Commission and one or more employees of the Commission.

    (2) In exercising their functions under sub-paragraph (1), the Commission shall comply with any directions given to them by the Secretary of State.
    Duty to give reasons for decisions
    9.—(1) It shall be the duty of the Commission to give to any person affected a written statement of their reasons for any decisions which they may make in the exercise of their functions under sections 5 to 10 or Schedule 3.
    (2) It shall be the duty of the Commission to arrange for the publication, in such manner as they think fit, of a written statement of their reasons—

    (a) for any decision which they may make to grant, or not to grant, to any particular applicant a licence under section 5;

    (b) for any decision which they may make to revoke a licence granted under section 5; and

    (c) for any other decision which they may make in the exercise of their functions under sections 5 to 10A or Schedule 3 and which they consider likely to be of interest to the public.

    (3) Sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) do not apply if or to the extent that the giving, or (as the case may be) the publication, of reasons would involve disclosure of information in breach of—

    (a) a restriction imposed by or under any other enactment; or

    (b) an obligation of confidence.

    Finance
    10. There shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament such sums as are necessary to defray any expenditure of the Commission.
    Accounts
    11.—(1) The Commission shall—

    (a) keep proper accounts and proper records in relation to the accounts, and

    (b) prepare a statement of accounts in respect of each financial year.

    (2) The statement shall comply with any directions that may be given by the Secretary of State as to the information to be contained in such a statement, the manner in which such information is to be presented or the methods and principles according to which such a statement is to be prepared.
    (3) Copies of the statement shall be sent to the Secretary of State and the Comptroller and Auditor General within such period after the end of the financial year to which the statement relates as the Secretary of State may direct.
    (4) The Comptroller and Auditor General shall examine, certify and report on the statement and shall lay copies of the statement and of his report before Parliament.
    (5) The Secretary of State shall not give a direction under this paragraph without the Treasury's approval.
    (6) In this paragraph "financial year" means—

    (a) the period beginning with the coming into force of section 3A and ending with the next 31st March, and

    (b) each successive period of twelve months ending with 31st March.

    Application of seal and evidence
    12. The application of the seal of the Commission shall be authenticated by the signature—

    (a) of any member of the Commission, or

    (b) of any other person who has been authorised by the Commission (whether generally or specially) for that purpose.

    13. A document purporting to be duly executed under the seal of the Commission, or to be signed on behalf of the Commission, shall be received in evidence and, unless the contrary is proved, taken to be so executed or signed.
    14. Paragraphs 12 and 13 do not extend to Scotland."

PART III

  MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
  The Public Records Act 1958
  8. In Schedule 1 to the Public Records Act 1958 (definition of public records) the following entry shall be inserted at the appropriate place in Part II of the Table at the end of paragraph 3—
  "National Lottery Commission."
  The Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967
  9. In the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967, in Schedule 2 (departments and authorities subject to investigation)—
  (a) the following entry shall be inserted at the appropriate place—
  "National Lottery Commission."; and.
  (b) the entry relating to the Office of the Director General of the National Lottery shall be omitted.
  The House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975
  10. In the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975—
  (a) in Part II of Schedule 1 (bodies of which all members are disqualified) the following entry shall be inserted at the appropriate place—
  "The National Lottery Commission;"; and.
  (b) in Part III of that Schedule (other disqualifying offices) the entry relating to the Director General of the National Lottery shall be omitted.
  The Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975
  11. In the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975—

  (a) the same entry as is set out in paragraph 10(a) above shall be inserted at the appropriate place in Part II of Schedule 1; and

  (b) in Part III of that Schedule, the entry relating to the Director General of the National Lottery shall be omitted.

  The Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992
  12.—(1) The Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992 shall be amended as follows.
  (2) In section 7 (which restricts Ministers' powers to remove members of tribunals listed in Schedule 1 to that Act) in subsection (2) (tribunals to which that section does not apply)—

  (a) after "33(a)," there shall be inserted "33AA,"; and

  (b) the words "33A," shall be omitted.

  (3) In Schedule 1 (tribunals under the supervision of the Council on Tribunals) paragraph 33A (which relates to the Director General) shall be omitted and after paragraph 33 there shall be inserted—

  "National Lottery

  33AA. The National Lottery Commission in respect of their functions under sections 10 and 10A of, and Schedule 3 to, the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 (c. 39), and any member, employee or committee of that Commission authorised under paragraph 8 of Schedule 2A to that Act to exercise any of those functions."

  The 1993 Act
  13. In section 14 of the 1993 Act (annual report) in subsection (2)—

  (a) paragraph (a) (which relates to the first report of the Director General) shall be omitted; and

  (b) after that paragraph there shall be inserted—

  "(aa) the period beginning with the date on which section 3A comes into force and ending with the next 31st March, and".
  14. In section 20 of the 1993 Act (interpretation of Part I)—

  (a) before the definition of "contravention" there shall be inserted—

  ""the Commission" means the National Lottery Commission;"; and.

  45

  (b) the definition of "the Director General" shall be omitted.

  15.—(1) Section 31 of the 1993 Act (payments from Distribution Fund in respect of expenses) shall be amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (2)—

  (a) paragraph (a) (meeting payments made or to be made under paragraph 5 of Schedule 2) shall cease to have effect; and

  (b) after that paragraph there shall be inserted—

  "(aa) meeting payments made or to be made under paragraph 10 of Schedule 2A,".
  (3) Subsection (3) (which relates to subsection (2)(a)) shall be omitted.
  (4) At the end of the section there shall be added—
  "(4) In determining what amounts are appropriate for meeting the payments referred to in subsection (2)(aa), the Secretary of State shall take into account sums paid or to be paid into the Consolidated Fund under section 7(6)."").
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 4 to 9.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 4 to 9.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  10 Schedule 2, page 26, line 37, at end insert—
  ("Application to Scotland
  11. Paragraphs 7 and 8 do not extend to Scotland.").
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10. In moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 11. These are purely technical amendments to the provisions in Schedules 2 and 4 which deal with the execution of documents on behalf of the New Opportunities Fund and the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts. Paragraphs (7) and (8) of both schedules stipulate how documents should be executed on behalf of both of those bodies. In Scotland there is no need to make it an express provision because this matter is already dealt with by the Requirements of Writing (Scotland) Act 1995, which is intended to govern execution of documents in all circumstances.
  The 1995 Act provides for documents to be executed on behalf of bodies corporate if signed by a member, the secretary or an authorised signatory and if signed either by one witness or sealed with the common seal of the body. I commend the amendment to the House.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
  Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, as the noble Lord says, these are technical amendments and we have no special observations to make about them. However, as we are being so very expeditious this afternoon,
  46
  I should like to take the opportunity, first, to thank the noble Lord for his good humour in piloting the Bill through the House—
  Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
  Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, here is the sting. I only wish that the noble Lord's convictions or instructions—I do not know which have been more important—had not prevented him from accepting the very reasonable suggestions that we put forward which, in our view, would have produced a better, fairer and constitutionally more sound piece of legislation.
  The Government have rejected all amendments which would have enshrined in the Bill the principle of additionality. Although there was no danger that the additionality principle would be breached under the 1993 Act, it is clear that the main purpose of the Bill is to use lottery money to help finance the Government's own social programmes. The Government have refused all the amendments designed to protect the money going to the existing good causes—the arts, heritage, sport and charities—from capture by the New Opportunities Fund. The Government have rejected amendments which would have limited the power under the 1993 Act for the Secretary of State to reduce the share of each of the original good causes to below 13⅓ per cent.
  In the other place, the Government rejected amendments to hold them to their manifesto commitment not to set up the New Opportunities Fund until after the Millennium Commission was wound up. They rejected amendments before your Lordships' Committee which were designed to remove from the Bill the retrospective provision which backdated the apportionment of National Lottery money to 14th October, and which has cost the original good causes £141 million. We have tallied it up over the past six months. The Government rejected our attempts to prevent NESTA becoming a venture capital or new development agency. Finally, they rejected amendments which were designed to ensure that the arm's-length principle applied to the New Opportunities Fund.
  We believe that the Bill passes into law with weaknesses, injustices and broken promises which could have been avoided and which will cause problems in the years ahead.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for those kind personal comments. However, he will not be surprised if I resist the opportunity to treat this as another debate on Bill do now pass and if I defend, silently but not without conviction, the Bill against the strictures which the noble Lord has just made. I commend the amendment to the House.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  11 Schedule 4, page 32, line 24, at end insert—
  ("Application to Scotland
  13. Paragraphs 7 and 8 above do not extend to Scotland.").
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 11.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 11.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  12 Schedule 5, page 32, line 26, at end insert—
PART I

  ENACTMENTS RELATING TO REPLACEMENT OF DIRECTOR GENERAL BY COMMISSION
  Chapter

  Short title

  Extent of repeal

  1967 c. 13.

  The Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967.

  In Schedule 2, the entry relating to the Office of the Director General of the National Lottery.

  1975 c. 24.

  The House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975.

  In Schedule 1, in Part III, the entry relating to the Director General of the National Lottery.

  1975 c. 25.

  The Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975.

  In Schedule 1, in Part III, the entry relating to the Director General of the National Lottery.

  1992 c. 53.

  The Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992.

  In section 7(2), the words "33A,". In Schedule 1, paragraph 33A.

  1993 c. 39.

  The National Lottery etc. Act 1993.

  Section 3. Section 14(2)(a). In section 20, the definition of "the Director General". Section 31(2)(a) and (3).

  Schedule 2.

  1998 c. 00.

  The National Lottery Act 1998.

  Section 1(4).

PART II

  OTHER ENACTMENTS").
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 12.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 12.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  National Minimum Wage Bill
  4.45 p.m.
  The Solicitor-General (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
  Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  [The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Tordoff) in the Chair.]
  Clause 41 [Power to apply Act to individuals who are not otherwise "workers"]:
  Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 116:
  Page 25, line 37, at beginning insert ("After a process of consultation with persons representative of industry and small business,").
  The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 116, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 117 and, in doing so, to ask the Committee: why is a self-employed person like an elephant? Because they are both impossible to describe, but you can certainly recognise one when you see it.
  Let us consider a few examples. A taxi driver who owns his taxi is clearly self-employed, but a non-owner-driver who uses the same radio service, which also handles his credit bookings, and who works on some sort of commission arrangement with the vehicle owner, may very well either be self-employed or not. A jockey, even one exclusively contracted to an owner or a trainer for a season, is probably self-employed.
  If a man qualifies as a solicitor, sets up in practice and acquires some partners, he is clearly self-employed. If, after some years, he decides to spend more time with his golf clubs and goes into semi-retirement, becoming a consultant in the firm that he founded, dealing with just a few special clients and continuing to provide expertise in his specialty, he ceases at a stroke to be self-employed and becomes an employee, despite the fact that he is working in the same office, sitting at the same desk and doing the same job.
  Under paragraph (a) of Clause 41, which is covered by Amendment No. 116, the Secretary of State seeks to apply the provisions of this Act to
  "any individual … who would not otherwise he a worker".
  That is a pretty sweeping power. I repeat that the clause refers to "any individual". The Secretary of State does not even offer to exercise that power reasonably—if I may remind the Committee of earlier discussions on other aspects of the Bill. The Bill does not give the slightest clue as to the criteria which the Secretary of State will apply when deciding whether to invoke this very wide power—yet it is a power that may very well turn the entire concept of self-employment on its head or make a mockery of the English language.
  Before the Secretary of State makes regulations which, at a stroke of her pen, turn my window cleaner into my employee, we believe that she must submit to some very minor restrictions. That is precisely what Amendment No. 116 seeks to achieve. Instead of merely acting on her own preconceptions, misconceptions or, indeed, a mere whim, we ask the Secretary of State to consult employers' representatives. The Government have repeatedly told us during this stage of the Bill that the Minister will consult widely before making any regulations. This clause as drawn does not oblige her to do so. All that Amendment No. 116 seeks is that she should be obliged to do so.
  I turn to Amendment No. 117. In the Notes on Clauses the DTI informs the Committee that the object of this clause is
  "to prevent avoidance of the national minimum wage".
  Once again, as when this aspect has been raised in other parts of the Bill, we entirely support that objective. However, I am puzzled that in drafting this and other provisions of the Bill the left hand (the DTI) does not seem to know what the right hand (the Treasury, in the form of the Inland Revenue) is doing and has been doing successfully and efficiently over generations. Does the DTI consult the Treasury? Does the DTI even speak to the Treasury? Does the Secretary of State speak to the Chancellor of the Exchequer? According to recent reports in the press, that is a wholly different question. It is as if the DTI has arrived from another planet unaware of the existing facilities and tried and tested definitions that cover matters which this Bill attempts to address.
  In Clause 2(4) the Secretary of State seeks power to define by regulations remuneration, benefits in kind and allowable deductions from pay and to change those definitions when she decides to do so. That power is sought despite the fact that the Inland Revenue has an adequate set of rules and volumes of case law to deal with all of those. I argued that point in relation to Amendments Nos. 19 and 22. I then suggested that anything that was taxable should be regarded as wages for the purposes of this Bill. The Minister rejected my argument on grounds that I found far from convincing. He said that the regimes for income tax and the national minimum wage were different. I do not agree. If they are different it is only because the Government choose to say so.
  In the present clause the Secretary of State wants to rush in and define "self-employed". Bearing in mind the allegorical elephant that I mentioned in my opening remarks, frankly, that will not do. The Inland Revenue has a perfectly adequate definition and a comprehensive series of tests to decide whether or not a person is self-employed. Those regulations and tests are designed specifically to prevent tax avoidance by a person who pretends to be self-employed when he is not. That is exactly the objective of this clause. We cannot have two parallel systems so that a person who is self-employed for taxation purposes is arbitrarily expelled from that status by a contradictory order of the Minister. The fact that such an order will need to be debated is of no real help given the Government's steamroller of a majority in another place.
  We also cannot have a state of affairs in which the Inland Revenue is able to decide in its own interests to rule that a person who is not recognised as self-employed by the DTI is not such for taxation purposes. Is it possible to envisage the Treasury giving up ally of its power and authority? Indeed it is, in just two words: interest rates.
  I read with interest the debate in Committee in the other place. I searched hard to find an explanation of the DTI declining to accept a ready made, tried and tested definition. The Minister for Small Businesses found the following unconvincing reasons on 3rd February at col. 749. First, she said that the Government wanted
  "to cover any loopholes which unscrupulous employers may find and exploit".
  We certainly support that. But it is difficult to understand how setting up a new definition and structure that will undoubtedly have to be tested in the courts item by item will help to avoid loopholes, especially in the short term. The Minister also said:
  "The Inland Revenue has no strict definition of self-employment, but it does use certain criteria. As a result, cases are decided individually".
  Fancy that, my Lords! To pay attention to the individual circumstances of each case rather than try to cram them into a rigid, inapplicable and inappropriate category is what a reasonably judicial, or quasi-judicial, system demands. The "certain criteria" that the Inland Revenue use are those that we want the DTI to use in the interests of consistency.
  I revert to my window cleaner. Suppose that he falls off a ladder outside my house. I say that he is self-employed and the Inland Revenue backs me up. The Secretary of State can make him my employee and possibly make me subject to a greater liability, including criminal prosecution, because of the definition that she chooses to impose. I do not know what the Government are frightened of. In the short Clause 41 they take powers to include within the definition of the Bill persons who are not workers. All we ask is that the exercise of these powers does not override a person's established status as a self-employed person.
  We do not propose to inhibit the power of the Secretary of State to close loopholes and therefore we support the principles of this clause. But we want the Government to be able to construct effective anti-avoidance devices without having to return to Parliament for fresh primary legislation. We must not allow a judgment to be made by the Secretary of State or her advisers who, with no disrespect, may have no great practical experience of the real world of self-employment and may hastily overreact to an emerging problem or make a decision that is inconsistent with a person's tax status.
  To sum up, Amendment No. 116 simply obliges the Secretary of State to consult the representatives of industry, particularly small businesses for they are the ones who are likely to be most affected, before she makes a decision. We want the Secretary of State to be sure of the facts and the consequences before she makes her decision. She will still be entitled to make up her

  51
  mind based on her own opinion having given due consideration to the advice that she receives, unless that decision proves to be wholly irrational. Amendment No. 116 does not inhibit the powers of the Secretary of State but simply requires her to pause to consider the matter before acting. I am sure that there can be no objection to that. All that we ask in Amendment No. 117 is that logic, consistency and continuity with the Inland Revenue's tried and tested rules are applied. I beg to move.
  5 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Clinton-Davis): I apologise to the noble Baroness for missing the first few moments of her contribution this afternoon. I have been informed of her remarks by my noble friends on the Front Bench.
  The noble Baroness asked a number of very pertinent questions. Does the DTI consult the Treasury? Yes. Do we speak to each other? Yes, quite a lot. Does the DTI come from another planet? I believe that the noble Baroness is a little confused and is perhaps referring to the shadow Secretary of State. It certainly does not, and that is widely recognised.
  Clause 41 represents a very important part of this Bill. Its purpose is to provide the Secretary of State with a measure of flexibility. We want to be able to close any loopholes that may be opened at a future time by some employers who wish to dodge their responsibilities. We also want to be able to adjust the coverage of the Bill as necessary to deal with changing labour market practices and working arrangements. We have drafted the Bill sufficiently tightly to cover all of those who as far as we can tell should be covered at this stage. But who knows? In the light of experience, we might find it necessary to extend the Bill further. Some employers may go to great lengths to avoid their responsibilities. I hope that that is not the case. We are convinced that most employers will want to do the opposite; they will want to comply with the legislation. I put forward the reason for that to the Committee on the previous occasion. They do not want to establish bad practices in this regard. It is important that we have a level playing field and that the cowboys do not succeed.
  Amendment No. 116 would require the Secretary of State to consult representatives of industry and small business before extending the Bill to further descriptions of individuals. I believe in consultation. I urged it on many occasions when I was sitting on the Benches opposite. It is right that the Opposition should probe the Government's intentions. I hope that that is what they are seeking to do.
  Long before the election, and since, we have engaged in wide consultation. We did it with regard to the minimum wage policy. One of the reasons for setting up the Low Pay Commission was to ensure that we maximised the possibilities for consultation. My colleague, the Minister of State in another place, has confirmed that we will consult on the regulations under the Bill. I have said it many times in this place. It is normal and proper to consult. That is what I was told
  52
  frequently by Ministers when I sat on that side of the Chamber. They said that it was not necessary to have such requirements within the framework of a Bill itself.
  My problem with the amendment is that it would be over-prescriptive to require consultation to be established on the face of the Bill. The Secretary of State would of course consult before extending the Bill by using the power in the clause. Consultation will take place in normal circumstances, but there may be circumstances where consultation could make action less effective.
  One of the aims of Clause 41, as I said, is to ensure that the Secretary of State can close any loopholes that might emerge. One cannot rule out the possibility that some employers, and some of their advisers, might find a loophole and seek to frustrate the legislature's intention. That might include reclassifying their entire workforce or revising all their working arrangements. If that were to happen, we would want to act rapidly to ensure that the workers concerned were not deprived of their rights. That might preclude consultation before action were taken.
  There would not be much purpose in engaging in consultation in those circumstances, which may be extreme. Who knows? The amendment would also require the Secretary of State to consult one part of the social partnership only. That is not desirable. The point of consultation is to achieve an all-round perspective. We know that the previous government eschewed that possibility. They did not like consulting the social partners as a whole. Theirs was a one-sided operation. That is not my idea of consultation. I am not in the business of turning a deaf ear to important parties in consultations of this kind. We want to work together. It is a dynamic process. Both sides of industry and the Low Pay Commission provide a good example of what can be achieved by that process. The amendment is unnecessary and potentially harmful. I hope that the noble Baroness will not press it.
  I turn now to Amendment No. 117. I repeat the point about covering any loopholes which unscrupulous employers might try to exploit. Self-employment is a potential area of concern. It is one of great complexity, as the noble Baroness recognised. In most cases there is no problem in distinguishing the self-employed from employees and workers, but there is a degree of uncertainty at the margins. The noble Baroness is worried about how we shall draw the distinction in such cases. The amendment seeks to tie the Bill to the definition of "self-employment" used in tax law.
  There is no necessary correlation between the two. It would not be right to tie ourselves on the face of the Bill to criteria which are used in tax law as distinct from employment law. There are distinctions to be drawn. We are following an approach used in the Employment Rights Protection Act 1996 by the government of the noble Baroness. If it was right to do it then, why should we not do it in these circumstances? The noble Baroness did not seek to address that point.
  In another place the Opposition pressed hard on the issue. Mr. Green, a Conservative Member, when a similar amendment was being discussed in

  53
  Committee—I cannot quote him verbatim because I am not allowed to—in effect said that people who were self-employed in the assessment of one branch of government should not be regarded as employees in another. The noble Baroness must address the point raised by her honourable friend in another place. Self-employment for tax reasons is based on a number of tests designed to establish status on a case-by-case basis. In most cases it is clear whether someone is or is not self-employed for tax and minimum wage purposes. I concede that. There will be cases where the issue becomes questionable. It is not sensible to tie employment law to criteria drawn up for tax purposes where there is, in any case, no certainty.
  The arguments adduced by the noble Baroness's honourable friend in another place, which I adopt, represent important answers to the case which the noble Baroness has put persuasively, but it would be wrong to take her advice. I hope that she will withdraw the amendment. If not, she will seek the opinion of the Committee, and we shall do whatever we can to reject it.
  Baroness O'Cathain: I listened to the persuasive arguments on both sides, especially with regard to Amendment No. 116. If the Secretary of State will consult, why does not the Minister consider it wise to put it on the face of the Bill? The Minister described a hypothetical situation. He said that it would be crazy to consult the employers because they would be the people avoiding the payment of the minimum wage. The amendment does not refer to the employers. The amendment provides:
  "After a process of consultation with persons representative of industry and small business".
  I agree with the Minister that if someone is openly flaunting the application of this law, one would want a process whereby one could stop that immediately and not consult. That is not what is stated in the amendment.
  We hope that when the Bill becomes an Act it will last for a number of years. Events move on and none of us can forecast the different situations which will pertain in six months' or six years' time. In order to keep abreast of events and the changing pattern of process in industry and business, it would help the Secretary of State to have the power of consultation written on the face of the Bill.
  I am ignorant as to whether the Low Pay Commission has an ongoing role which would enable the Secretary of State to consult with the commission in three or four years' time. I suspect that it has not. If it had such a role, that might be an answer. I believe that there is a risk—it may not be huge—and that in some situations it might be better if the Secretary of State were involved in the consultation process. I hope that I have made the point clearly. I would not go to the stake on it, but I believe that there is merit in putting the provision on the face of the Bill.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: There is a misunderstanding about the way in which we have consulted through the Low Pay Commission. As I said when we were last in Committee, the Low Pay Commission is not drawn from representatives of industry and small business. It ensures that people of sufficient expertise in the various fields
  54
  to be covered can join together in offering expertise to the work of the commission. That is very different. So the amendment is fatally flawed.
  The significance of what the noble Baroness says is recognised by the Government. We say that we have already consulted widely. In the overwhelming majority of cases we would do so. But I have drawn attention to an urgent situation where the Government have to take immediate action and would not have the opportunity to consult with the Low Pay Commission, or anyone else.
  I made a Statement in the House on the national minimum wage recently. I was bombarded with a large number of questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, which I did not have time to answer. But we said then that the Government will be using the Low Pay Commission in order to engage in the development of proposals for, and to take forward work on, monitoring and evaluating the introduction of the national minimum wage over the next year. Clause 6 of the Bill enables the Secretary of State to refer matters to the Low Pay Commission at any future time.
  Baroness O'Cathain: I thank the Minister for giving way. I am not worried about the first year. I am worried about years three, four, five, six and onwards. I believe that there will be an automatic reaction: everyone will want to behave perfectly properly under the terms of the Act. I am worried about the situation beyond the euphoria which will attach to the first 12 months' operation of the Act.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: I am delighted to hear that there will be a state of euphoria after we have enacted the Bill. That is in marked contrast to the position adopted by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. I am euphoric now even thinking about it!
  The principle applies equally to a situation now or three or five years ahead. It would be unnecessarily inflexible and too rigid for the Government to tie themselves in all circumstances to the consultation that the noble Baroness wants as a matter of legislative requirement.
  5.15 p.m.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: I thank the Minister for what he said. He may not be surprised to hear that I am disappointed. The point I sought to make was that Clause 41 provides the power to apply the Act to individuals who are not otherwise "workers". Clause 41(a) refers to "any individual". We sought in the amendment to ensure that the genuinely self-employed worker would not fall into that category. Amendment No. 117 deals with exactly the same point. I was not asking the Minister for a long, detailed explanation. The Secretary of State is taking sweeping powers upon herself in extending the definition of "worker". I referred to the allegorical riddle: why is a self-employed person like an elephant? The Minister was not then present. The answer is that we know what we are talking about, but it is difficult to recognise.
  In discussing Clause 2(4), I sought to make the point that I have put again in Amendment No. 117 on the different regimes for income tax. The Minister

  55
  commented on the numerous questions I asked when he made a Statement. I accept that this is a convenient time to mention it. I accept that the Minister could not answer all those questions. However, I hope that he and his officials will ensure that I receive written replies.
  The Minister asks me not to press the amendment. I did something which I understand politicians do not do—perhaps I am not a politician. I made clear to the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, that we had no intention of dividing on any of the amendments. First, I understand from the Labour Chief Whip that there is the tug-of-war this evening; and, secondly, many noble Lords will wish to watch England play Romania. Therefore because I am a reasonable Opposition spokesman, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 117 not moved.]
  Clause 41 agreed to.
  Clauses 42 to 44 agreed to.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 118:
  After Clause 44, insert the following new clause—
  FAMILY BUSINESSES
  (". A person who is employed by his spouse, parent or child, or by a private limited company of which his spouse, parent or child is a substantial (but not necessarily a controlling) shareholder, does not qualify for the national minimum wage in respect of that employment").
  The noble Baroness said: Although Amendment No. 118 is not grouped with Amendment No. 119, I indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, that I would speak to the amendments together.
  Clause 44 recognises the need to exempt voluntary workers and hence the organisations for which they work from the requirements of the national minimum wage. That is entirely right and proper. I declare an interest as chairman of the National Association of Leagues of Hospital Friends, an organisation which would collapse if we were required to pay our volunteers for the invaluable service that they freely give. However, there are two other categories of employees whom it is essential to exempt from the operation of the Bill. The first, referred to in Amendment No. 118, is spouses, parents and children of the owners of a business.
  I used the word "owners" because some small businesses, even the corner grocery shop or newsagent, may be incorporated as a limited company. A limited company was once described as having no soul to damn and no body to kick. Neither does it have a spouse, parent or child. We are talking about the family business where sometimes, or frequently, the spouse, child or parent of the owner comes in to help at a particularly busy period, at a time of staff shortage, or even as a regular means of keeping overheads down and avoiding the need for extra paid staff. The family concerned derives its living from the business, so whether a wage is paid to the spouse, parent or child is the concern of
  56
  the family and no one else. The Government have no business involving themselves in people's ordinary domestic affairs.
  Are the Government really saying that if a shopkeeper's spouse comes in to help out on a Saturday afternoon or during the Christmas period some wretched greengrocer will be liable to be served with an enforcement notice under Clause 19, sued by an official under Clause 20, suffer a penalty notice under Clause 21 and, last by no means least, be prosecuted under the criminal law and be fined at the maximum rate normally reserved for the most heinous offences under Clause 31?
  During the passage of the Bill, I was approached by a smallholder who told me that he had a farm shop on his land. His 70 year-old mother ran it purely to give herself something to do. She wanted no wages from her son. He said that if he were forced to pay her he would have to close his shop, damaging his business, and his mother would have to stay at home all day. Rendering a parent liable for not paying a child the minimum wage when the child is assisting in the family business would be as ludicrous as complaining that the child was not being paid for mowing the lawn or washing the car.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: Does not the noble Baroness realise that that would not apply because children of the age she is contemplating are not within the provisions of the Bill?
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: I thank the noble Lord for his interruption, but I do not accept what he says. There are plenty of teenagers of 18 or 19 who help their parents in a local shop on a Saturday and who would be covered by the Bill. I use the word "child" in the relationship of parent and child. I am well aware of the age because I have studied the Bill thoroughly, as I am sure the Minister knows.
  We cannot rely on the possibility that the officials who are to enforce the provisions of the Bill will do so with discretion and in a reasonable manner. I regret to say that experience shows us that that is not something we can rely on. The over-enthusiastic enforcement of EC directives is a case in point. In any event, why should we have to depend on the good will of some official or risk inconsistent treatment in different parts of the country? The amendment is a common sense provision which neither damages the Bill nor the general principle of a national minimum wage.
  I turn to Amendment No. 119 in respect of which I believe exactly the same principles apply. The vast majority of limited companies are family owned. Even when the directors are unrelated they are, in essence, business partners trading under what is called "the corporate veil." Such companies are often described as quasi partnerships and the directors of most companies of that kind are usually the only or the main shareholder. Once again, it is not for the Government to interfere in private arrangements freely entered into by directors and shareholders who enjoy equal bargaining power.
  In connection with Amendment No. 2, the Minister claimed—indeed, he insisted—that a partnership was the same as an individual employer and not X number

  57
  of separate employers, a topic to which I shall return in a later amendment to Clause 54. Before we get into another legal argument, perhaps I may draw his attention to the recent case of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v. Bottrill. That case involved the Minister's own department, so I am sure that he is perfectly familiar with it. The ruling was that a person who was the managing director and the holder of the sole issue share in a company was nevertheless an employee.
  Perhaps I may give the Committee two examples from my own experience of the anomalies which can arise unless directors are exempt. I began my own business early in 1972 with a partner. In order to help it through its first two shaky years, we drew no salary until 1974. I was fortunate in having other sources of income, but my partner, my co-director, did not. He survived by using other assets and bank and other loans. It would have been wrong to force us to increase the company's overdraft or imperil our ability to meet our bills immediately they fell due by making us take an unwanted salary, however small—or, in our case, considering the number of hours we worked, quite substantial—and having to pay tax and national insurance on unwanted income, too.
  In giving my second example, I must again declare an interest in some small family investment companies of which I am a director. We do not pay directors' salaries simply because we prefer to pay all surplus income as dividends to our shareholders who are our family members. Once again, the purpose of the amendment is to avoid an anomalous situation where the state would be interfering in private internal arrangements which are none of its concern. In both cases, why should the Government exclude members of the Armed Forces and prisoners from the operation of the Bill simply because the Treasury would have to foot the bill and not exclude the owners of private businesses in relation to what they pay themselves and their immediate family out of their own pockets? I do not suggest that either of the two omissions—family members and directors—from the exclusions contained in Clauses 43, 44 and 45 is caused by any desire to over-regulate or to indulge in "nannyism". I believe that there are incongruities caused by a drafting oversight arising from the Government's desire to achieve universality. I trust that the Government will accept that there is no breach of the principles of the national minimum wage which they are pursuing by the legislation if they accede to the moderate exclusions we are seeking. I beg to move.
  Lord Monson: I am happy to support the noble Baroness's amendments. They are common sense amendments and, I imagine, would be regarded as such by the great majority of people. Can the Minister tell us what is the position of those aged, say, 18 or 19 who work part-time for their parents in return for board and lodging and perhaps other benefits in kind, with no
  58
  money changing hands? Presumably there would be no contract of employment in such a case. Are they excluded from the provisions of the Bill as it stands?
  Viscount Thurso: Perhaps I may ask a supplementary question in relation to Amendment No. 119 which raises some interesting issues. It relates to companies limited by guarantee. I have served as a director of a number of such companies, usually associated with charities, or quasi-charity or voluntary organisations. A considerable amount of work is carried out by the directors of such companies and no remuneration is expected. In those circumstances and under the proposed legislation, would it be appropriate for those directors to remain unremunerated?
  5.30 p.m.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: I thank the noble Baroness, the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, for the interesting points which they raised. I shall do my best to reply. Before I do so, I should say that I appreciate the indulgence of the noble Baroness as regards the tug-of-war because it is being held for a very worthwhile charity—the Macmillan Nurses. It is a bit late to invite other people. However, it is an important charity and Members of both Houses have before played a significant role in helping it. Secondly, I know that the noble Baroness wants to watch the football, so her remarks were rather self-serving.
  Before I deal with the specific points raised by the noble Baroness and other noble Lords, I should say, again, that Amendment No. 118 deals with exclusions. This time it excludes family members from entitlement to the minimum wage.
  In another place, there was a lot of discussion about the employment of spouses. Amendment No. 118 goes rather further than that because in effect it seeks to exclude anyone employed by spouse, parent or child or by a business in which the spouse, parent or child is a substantial shareholder. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, said that that is quite reasonable and will be accepted by the wide majority of the public. I am not sure how he measures that but that is a matter for him to answer. I am not in the business of trying to go about excluding as many people as possible from the operation of this Bill. But that is what the Opposition are about. What is being proposed here would go against the whole principle of the Bill.
  Amendment No. 118, which was revised something like two weeks after it was first tabled, seems also to indicate a desire to over-complicate. I do not wish to become involved in a debate about the nature of shareholding control and whether a person is a substantial or controlling shareholder. Here we are talking about a Bill which is designed to deal with workers. It is founded on the basis of whether or not a person is a worker. The status of shareholders has nothing whatever to do with it.
  It is a very simple principle even though the Opposition seem to be in the business of making the matter as complicated as humanly possible. A

  59
  worker should be entitled to a minimum wage whoever he has as his employer. I see no reason why a person should be disenfranchised from the procedure which we are seeking to invoke for the first time just because the employer is his spouse, father or child. We are dealing with extremes all the time in this regard. An employer may quickly marry his employee in order not to pay the national minimum wage.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: I do not wish to interrupt the Minister's flow but we are not talking about ridiculous instances. We are talking about the basic small family shop, which would not survive if the wife who came in to help had to receive the national minimum wage. Such people give their services virtually free. That is what we are talking about. We are not talking about eccentric examples. The Minister should give some credence to the sensitivity of the issue. There are many small businesses in this country which will undoubtedly go out of business if there is a blanket coverage for the national minimum wage.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: With respect, I believe that the noble Baroness has in the past dealt with some extreme situations. I am entitled to an occasional riposte.
  I do not wish to pick holes in the amendment because my objection is fundamental. I do not question the noble Baroness's integrity for one moment and she does her duty by probing these matters. Our approach is to make the Bill inclusive and not exclusive. It is part of the whole integrity of the concept of a national minimum wage. That is the basic reason why I shall ask the Committee to reject the amendment unless the noble Baroness withdraws it.
  The whole essence of this matter is whether there is an employee relationship. I listened very patiently to what the noble Baroness said and she seemed to suggest that she was talking about small children. Perhaps I misunderstood her. Of course, that would not apply. The provisions apply only where there is an employment relationship. For example, in the case of a greengrocer's wife, one must ask whether she is working under a contract for money.
  The noble Baroness then sought to pray in aid an insolvency case, the details of which I am not familiar with. The answer is that, in some cases, a director would be an employee; in other cases, he would not. It depends entirely on the contractual relationship which exists. In those circumstances, each case must be decided on its own merits.
  I turn now to Amendment No. 119. Again, this amendment was discussed extensively on Report in another place. Under the Bill, a person who is a director of a company, limited or otherwise, would not normally be entitled to receive a national minimum wage because the legal status of a director, whether of a small or multi-million pound business, is that of an office holder. That is the distinction which must be drawn.
  There may be cases where, in addition, a director has a contract of employment with the business and that contract may be explicit or implicit. In such
  60
  circumstances, he would be an employee of the company and therefore entitled to the national minimum wage. That would apply to managing directors or directors who are one-man bands in charge of their own business.
  The Bill makes it very clear that directors who are simply office holders will not be entitled to the minimum wage; directors who are employees will be. That is the very simple proposition. That distinction is derived from existing employment law. Therefore, we do not need the amendment because it would add nothing useful to the Bill. The definitions in Clause 54 make it quite clear who is covered by the Bill. Directors who are not workers will not be covered, whereas directors who are workers will be so covered.
  In her references to director-employees, the noble Baroness raised various points which I shall try to answer. A director who is an employee of his own company could claim the minimum wage from that company in just the same way as such a director may claim other employment protection rights as an employee. The practical reality must surely be that nothing would be gained by pursuing such a course.
  I cannot envisage that that situation will arise. That is why I said it is rather fanciful. Even if it did, can one really envisage enforcement officers being inclined to take action in such circumstances? I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: I am even more disappointed with the Minister's reply to these two moderate and reasonable amendments. I believe the death knell will be sounded for many small businesses up and down the country if they realise that if they are given any assistance by a member of the family they will have to pay that person the national minimum wage. The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, shakes his head. I can tell him that I have already been approached by numerous small family businesses from all over the country on this matter. It is a brave government who think those feelings can be disregarded and that all will be well.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: I do not seek to disregard the generality of the points that have been made by the noble Baroness. It is quite possible that we need to inform the public better on this matter as the noble Baroness herself misunderstood the position. Therefore it is perfectly possible that other people may misunderstand it. It is my job here to try to correct a mistaken impression. I hope that the noble Baroness will read carefully what I have said. I hope I have convinced the Committee that I have advanced a perfectly reasonable proposition. I hope that small businesses will not be misled by some of the statements which have been made tonight which need to be corrected.
  Lord Monson: Before the noble Baroness decides what to do with this amendment, I hope the Minister will answer my query about 19 year-olds who, for

  61
  example, work for an hour and a half each evening in their parents' shop in return for board and lodging. Will they be excluded from the provisions of this Bill?
  Lord Clinton-Davis: I thought I had embraced that situation in the remarks that I made. The matter depends on whether there is a contract of employment and whether there is a consideration in money or in kind in relation to that.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: I would never pretend that the Minister is anything less than courteous when he corrects what he says is my mistaken view of the matter. However. I do not believe that I made a mistake. I believe that my interpretation of the situation is correct. However, I shall read carefully what the Minister has said. At this stage I shall withdraw the amendment but I shall probably return to it on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 119 not moved.]
  5.45 p.m.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 120:
  After Clause 44, insert the following new clause—
  EXCLUSION OF INCAPACITATED PERSONS AND EMPLOYMENT FOR THERAPEUTIC PURPOSES
  (" .—(1) The Secretary of State may, after consultation with the Low Pay Commission, make an order exempting incapacitated persons from the provisions of this Act.
  (2) An order under subsection (1) above shall provide for the issue of permits by the Secretary of State to those persons whom he believes to be incapacitated and may make provision for—

  (a) the procedure for applying for and issuing such permits;

  (b) the procedure for establishing the minimum wage to which each permit holder shall be entitled (being less than the single hourly rate prescribed under section 1(3) of this Act);

  (c) the appointment by the Secretary of State of suitably qualified persons to assess such applications; and

  (d) the procedure for appealing against a refusal to issue such a permit.

  (3) No person shall be guilty of an offence under this Act in respect of an employee who holds a permit issued in accordance with an order made under this section.
  (4) For the purposes of this section, a person is incapacitated if he is so affected by physical injury or mental deficiency or infirmity due to age or any other cause as to be incapable of earning the national minimum wage.
  (5) A person whose employment is primarily undertaken for the purpose of therapy and whose employer is a non-profit-making organisation does not qualify for the national minimum wage in respect of that employment.").
  The noble Baroness said: Clause 44 of this Bill, which deals with voluntary workers, was numbered Clause 41 when it was discussed in Committee in another place. It was a bare 10 lines long. After debate in Committee the Minister of State properly said,
  "It is important that the Government reflect … and that we ensure that our proposals take into account the complexities of the issue".
  The result of that further reflection was the present Clause 44, which is now some 47 lines long and deals more fully with voluntary workers and those persons
  62
  and organisations they help. In the light of the reasonable way that the Government have dealt with this kind of problem, it seems churlish to point out that there are still two serious omissions which must he dealt with.
  First, I refer to severely incapacitated persons and, secondly, to persons carrying out therapeutic work while in the employment of a non-profit-making organisation. I shall deal with the proposed exemption of severely incapacitated persons in the proposed new subsections (1) to (4) of my amendment. I believe these provisions speak for themselves and need no explanation. I should like to think they are acceptable to the Government without argument because the party opposite claims to be the party that cares, particularly for the sick and for the infirm.
  These four proposed new subsections have been carefully drafted so as not to constitute a licence to unscrupulous employers to exploit vulnerable persons by paying them too little. The Committee will notice that the proposed new subsection (2) provides for the Secretary of State to lay down procedures for the exemptions that I seek. I stress that there will be no blanket exemptions. Each case will be decided on its merits after an individual application has been made and will be granted only after the approval of a suitably qualified assessor. I assume this would normally be a doctor, as is the case with regard to claims for disability allowances. But, again, the Secretary of State will have discretion here.
  I have already suggested that I should have thought this part of my amendment would be acceptable to the Government without argument. However, I have been given no indication that the Government will accept it. Therefore I point out what I believe to be the implications of a refusal. We all realise that unfortunately and regrettably there are many persons whose disabilities make it difficult for them to obtain employment. These people want to work as best they are able. They do not merely wish to earn money or to have some occupation. It is even more important to them to enjoy some measure of independence and a feeling of self-reliance and self-respect.
  I quote from a paper published a few weeks ago by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, an organisation whose views the Government usually approve. The paper states,
  "Disabled people may have been affected by a much wider and systematic shift in employment patterns. As the supply of labour has expanded faster than demand, employers have become more selective in their choice of staff. Marginal workers such as disabled people have been excluded … Preliminary evidence suggests that very few found a job".
  I believe this refers to those who lost incapacity benefit after the rules were tightened up.
  The Low Pay Commission in table 3.1 of its report states that,
  "16 per cent. of the long-term disabled currently earn less than £3.50 an hour".

  63
  In its evidence to the Low Pay Commission the Royal National Institute for the Blind stated, on page 39,
  "Blind and partially sighted persons face bleak prospects in employment … Significantly, blind and partially sighted people are concentrated in lower paying, semi-skilled and routine manual occupations … Many blind and partially sighted people are therefore caught in poverty even when they are in work".
  I do not doubt that the same difficulties in obtaining work, discrimination in the workplace and low pay affect persons with other disabilities. It is simplistic to suggest that the solution to their problems will be to increase their pay entitlement. On the contrary, we believe that such action would increase their problems. It would make employers even less inclined to employ disabled people so long as they can employ able-bodied persons to do the same work for the same pay, possibly at a higher rate of productivity.
  What are the implications of a refusal by the Government to allow such persons the opportunity to go to work and to earn their own money after the most stringent inquiry into their individual circumstances as set out in the proposed new subsection (2)(c) of my amendment? The implications are that the Government, in pursuit of their policy of universality, will tell those people, "You may not work. You must simply live on government hand-outs in the form of disability allowances". Convicts will be allowed to work for less than the national minimum wage but not honest people who have committed the crime of being disabled. I cannot believe that the Government could reject an amendment with such important social implications.
  I now turn to the part of the amendment which deals with work carried out for therapeutic purposes. We are all familiar with the British Legion's poppy factory and with various forms of work carried out in workshops of the Royal National Institute for the Blind. I have no idea what these and similar organisations pay their workers but I am sure that they are as generous as they are able to be and may well already pay more than the wildest estimates of what the national minimum wage will be. The principal purpose of this kind of work is not to earn money for the organisation or necessarily to pay a living wage to the employee. It is to help the employee—who is suffering from some form of disability, including, for example, the loss of sight or of a limb, or some mental incapacity—to enjoy the dignity of following some useful occupation or simply to enable the employee gradually to recover a lost faculty.
  I recently paid a visit to community housing for people of a whole range of ages with learning disabilities. They run a pottery shop producing the most amazing range of vases, bowls and so on. I was presented with a beautiful vase as a souvenir of my visit. The person who made the vase had the benefit of passing time doing a practical job while at the same time having the satisfaction of knowing that he was doing something worth while. The person concerned receives full board and lodging, nursing and training, and receives a small personal allowance. He would receive the same even if he were capable of doing only very little, or indeed nothing. It cannot be right that such work should be treated as employment for the purposes
  64
  of this Bill, or that a charity, which has to scramble for every penny, should be forced to make a commercial payment for providing what is, after all, treatment for someone who is a long-term or probably permanent patient.
  There are enough problems with this Bill, because the Government have a rigid, unbending desire to achieve universality. However, the Government have to make the concession that we seek simply to prevent what they see as an injustice to low-paid workers being replaced with another injustice to persons whose needs are no less important. I beg to move.
  Viscount Bridgeman: In supporting my noble friend's amendment, I must apologise for not being able to be in my place at the beginning of the debate. I understand the desire of the Government to have as great a degree of universality as possible in the Bill. However, there have been exceptions. My noble friend referred to prisoners and share fishermen, and there are other special pleas. Surely this is a worthwhile exception.
  My noble friend reminded the Committee that under Clause 2 there are safeguards for disabled people. Employers, however lofty their motives, will in some cases be discouraged from taking on people from whom, through no fault of theirs, they cannot achieve the same degree of profitability as from fit people. I very much hope that the Minister will give careful consideration to this very reasonable amendment.
  The Viscount of Oxfuird: I, too, wish to thank my noble friend for her amendment. I also apologise for not having been in my place earlier. This amendment is possibly one of the most important. Let us take, for instance, an institution such as that at Enham Alamein near Andover, which deals with people who have cerebral palsy. They are totally incapable of profitable work except as a minimal base. The object of the institution is to encourage them, particularly for therapeutic purposes. Those people are given a small sum of money each week to make sure that they turn up. It is not a profitable organisation in the sense that its books show a profit. It exists as a total charity. There should be some consideration for that type of institution.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: I thank the noble Baroness for moving, in a perfectly reasonable way, a point of very great interest. In that, she was joined by the noble Viscounts, Lord Bridgeman and Lord Oxfuird.
  This is certainly a difficult issue. The Government have given it a great deal of thought. The fundamental point is that disabled people should in no way be discriminated against in the workplace. I accept immediately the intention of the amendment. In effect, the noble Baroness wants a permit system to operate allowing partial exemptions on the basis of incapacity, and to exempt those who work for therapeutic reasons.
  The words in question are in subsection (1) of the amendment:
  "exempting incapacitated persons from the provisions of this Act".

  65
  That is a dangerous route to follow, as I shall seek to argue. If it were to be followed, there is a risk of discrimination. I acquit the noble Baroness of any intention in that regard; however, that would be the effect. The amendment asks us to distinguish between the able-bodied and those who are,
  "incapable of earning the national minimum wage".
  It is a loose and difficult concept. In practice, it could easily lead to a totally unacceptable situation whereby some people were denied the national minimum wage when they had just as much right to it as anyone else. It could become the thin end of a very large wedge. It could deny the minimum wage to the very people who are most in need of its protection.
  The Low Pay Commission gave profound consideration to this issue. The commission's report includes the views of a number of groups representing disabled workers. Nowhere in the report is any of those groups quoted as favouring an exemption of the kind proposed for disabled workers in this amendment.
  What the Low Pay Commission had to say in its report is an important piece of evidence. There is no question of evading the issue. Perhaps I may ask the Committee to address paragraph 1.6 of the report, which deals with these matters. It states:
  "A small minority who gave evidence to us suggested exempting or having a lower level of the National Minimum Wage for people with disabilities. But the vast majority, including the Government, saw no justification for this. We believe"—
  these are the most important words—
  "that there are compelling arguments for treating disabled workers in the same way as other workers. To do so recognises the value of disabled workers to employers and supports a culture of social inclusion. Moreover, for those people with severe disabilities that limit their productivity, the Government funds the Supported Employment Programme which helps employers recruit and maintain these workers in jobs".
  That is essentially a right and proper riposte to the points made by the noble Baroness and other noble Lords who spoke on this matter. Why did the commission arrive at that conclusion? I submit that it recognised the overwhelming correctness of the case. The vast majority of people from whom it took evidence saw no justification for embarking upon the programme that the noble Baroness supports—and supports with total integrity.
  That brings me to a particular point of the amendment dealing with therapeutic earnings. The commission's report points out that the Government make provision for those with severe disabilities which limit their productivity. That helps employers in recruiting and maintaining in jobs workers of the kind that we are considering. Why should we disagree with the conclusion reached by the commission after such profound consideration?
  The noble Baroness seeks to dissociate her thinking from those conclusions. I think that that would be mistake. I am not saying that there is a compulsion for anyone to say that everything the commission has done is right; and, of course, the Government have chosen in one particular respect not to agree with the conclusions of the commission. However, where the commission has given such profound consideration to a matter of such
  66
  sensitivity as this I believe that we should listen carefully to what it has to say. I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment, although I have no doubt that I am right in anticipating that she will say once again, perhaps in different words, that she is disappointed. It has been an evening of disappointment for her, but I hope that she will recognise that these issues are not idly dealt with. They were dealt with, as I indicated, in the most cogent and profound way by the Low Pay Commission, and I ask the noble Baroness to accept that reasoning.
  6 p.m.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: The Minister tempts me to come up with a word other than "disappointed". It is hard, when standing on one's feet, to think of a variety of words without taking too long over it or testing one's powers too much. Between 1992 and 1995 only 2 per cent. of recipients of disability benefit moved from benefit into full-time work and only 200 of those receiving the present disabled workers' allowance have been encouraged into work by the benefit. I therefore have to say to the Minister that I am disappointed because I believe that what will happen is that very severely disabled people will simply not get work.
  Sometimes disabled workers will require extra facilities, such as specially adapted equipment and access and transport facilities, the cost of compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. If to that employers have to add the national minimum wage I fear that they will not do so because it will be too expensive for them. I hope that I am wrong and that the Minister is correct, but I fear that that will not be the case. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clauses 45 to 47 agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 121 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
  Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 122:
  After Clause 47, insert the following new clause—
  AGRICULTURAL WAGES: REPORTS
  ("—(1) Within one year of the laying of the first regulations under section 1 or 2 of this Act—

  (a) the Low Pay Commission shall make an evaluation of the impact of the national minimum wage established by regulations made under section 2 above as it affects workers covered by the relevant Agricultural Wages Order for each territory of the United Kingdom, and shall make a report thereon to the Secretary of State; and

  (b) the Low Pay Commission and the Agricultural Wages Boards acting jointly shall make a report to the Secretary of State and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on the operation of section 46 of this Act and the enactments mentioned in section 47(1) and (2) of this Act, and may make recommendations for such amendment of that section and those enactments as, in the opinion of the Commission, may ensure the more effective application of this act to agricultural workers.

  (2) The Secretary of State shall lay the report referred to in subsection (1)(a), and the Secretary of State and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food shall jointly lay the report referred to in subsection (1)(b), before Parliament within 28 days of their respective receipt.").
  The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 122 is placed after Clauses 46 and 47, which deal specifically with the agricultural industry. I can deal with it briefly. The only reason why agriculture is singled out for special treatment is that Clause 16 and the whole of Schedule 2 to the Bill deal specifically with agriculture as a separate industry, as indeed it is since it is the only one still to have a wages council.
  Clause 16 allows for the use of information gathered pursuant to agricultural wages legislation for some purposes of the Bill but imposes restrictions of secrecy in other directions. I would not wish any reasonable requirements of confidentiality to be breached. However, we believe that, in the interests of open government, any information in the possession of the Secretary of State for use in connection with this Bill, and any information which she has on which she may base any decision she makes in exercise of her powers under the Bill should be in the public domain, at least in general terms.
  I make no prediction as to how Clause 16 will have to be amended or whether it will need to be repealed altogether if the Government eventually produce their freedom of information Bill. The new clause simply requires reports to be made to the Secretary of State and to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on the workings of the Bill as regards this important and special industry after the first year of effective operation. Members of the Committee will have noted that it is just one pair of reports and that neither Minister is to be burdened with annual reports. One year should be enough to give a reasonable idea of how the industry is being, and is likely to be, affected.
  The Secretary of State is confident that the effects of the Bill can only be beneficial. We are sure that she will welcome an independent appraisal as regards the agricultural industry and the opportunity, if she is right, to share those excellent findings with Parliament. I beg to move.
  Lord Haskel: The noble Baroness referred to the matter of secrecy. Perhaps I may respond by saying that one person's secrecy is another person's commercial confidentiality.
  With regard to the amendment, it may be helpful if I explain briefly the three principles behind the Government's proposals as far as agriculture is concerned. The noble Baroness referred to the operation of the agricultural wages boards. The three principles are, first, that the minimum wage should apply in the agricultural sector as elsewhere; secondly, that we should not, through the Bill, seek to make wholesale changes to the existing agricultural wages regimes in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and that the agricultural wages boards will continue with their work; and, thirdly, that the same rules will apply across the board, both in agriculture and elsewhere.
  68
  The amendment would require the Low Pay Commission and the agricultural wages boards to report to the Secretary of State and the Minister of Agriculture on the operation of the clauses in the Bill which govern this kind of interface between the national minimum wage regime and the agricultural wages regimes. The main effect of the amendment would be to require the Secretary of State to set up a statutory Low Pay Commission to report on these agricultural matters, whether or not in conjunction with the agricultural wages boards, and to that extent remove the discretion of the Secretary of State with regard to what matters to refer to the Low Pay Commission, and indeed to pre-empt and supplant the planned 1999 review of the agricultural wages regimes.
  I should point out that the review of the agricultural wages boards was planned for 1998 but has been postponed until 1999 to give a year to see how the two regimes—the minimum wage regime and the agricultural wages boards regimes—bed down together.
  Perhaps I may assure Members of the Committee that the matters referred to in the proposed new clause will be looked at, one way or the other, as part of the review of the agricultural wages regimes. However, I believe that it is too early to speculate on what role a statutory commission might have in the process. Certainly, it is unnecessary to prescribe details of coverage, timing and procedure, as the amendment seeks to do. Therefore, while appreciating the thinking behind the amendment, I do not believe that it is necessary. I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that and withdraw her amendment.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: I said that I could be very brief; I was very brief, as was the Minister. I shall read what he said. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 48 [Application of Act to superior employers]:
  Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 123:
  Page 30, line 9, at end insert ("provided that in the circumstances it seems just and fair for him to be so deemed.").
  The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 123 may seem at first sight to be a minor drafting amendment. In fact, it is not. The Government's approach to this clause is somewhat curious. I shall explain what I mean shortly. First, I should point out that deeming is a legal draftsman's device—trick is too strong a word—to make something exist when that is not actually the case. The Oxford English Dictionary defines the word as meaning to "think of as existing". Lawyers drafting contracts, or Parliament, in its wisdom, can deem almost anything. If Parliament says, "For the purposes of this Act, Monday shall be deemed to occur after Friday", then that will be the case.
  In this clause, the employee of an employee is also "deemed" to be the employee of the head employer. Why should a sub-employee be deemed to be the employee of a person who did not engage him; who may not even know him? Surely common sense tells us that the employer is the person who pays the worker's

  69
  wages. However, I decided not to wrestle with that riddle because a much more important and serious issue arises from the clause.
  I said that the Government's approach seemed to be somewhat curious. That is something of an understatement. In the DTI Notes on Clauses, it states,
  "This clause closely follows the approach of Section 22 of the former Wages Act 1986".
  In fact, it does not; far from it. The clause follows word for word Section 22(1) of the 1986 Act. However, subsections (2) and (3) provided a defence for the head employer so that,
  "Where the commission … of an offence … is due to the act or default of some other person, that other person shall be guilty of the offence".
  In subsection (3) it states,
  "In any proceedings for an offence … it shall be a defence for the person charged to prove that he exercised all due diligence and took all reasonable precautions to secure that the provisions … were complied with".
  Why were those reasonable exceptions to this identical provision omitted from the present Bill? Why did the notes claim that the clause follows "closely"— I stress the word "closely"—the precedent of the Act introduced by the previous government when it clearly and manifestly does not?
  That is not all. Section 22 of the Wages Act 1986 was itself derived from Section 21 of the Wages Councils Act 1979. That contained the same provision as that proposed in Clause 48 of the present Bill, but with the same defences as are contained in the 1986 Act—defences not in the same words as in the 1986 Act, but entirely to the same effect. Those are the defences which the Government, for some reason, have seen fit to exclude from this Bill.
  The Wages Councils Act 1979 was derived from the Wages Councils Act 1959 and that too, in Section 18, contained the same provisions as appear in Clause 48 of this Bill, but with the same defences as were later incorporated into the 1979 and 1986 Acts. Nineteen-fifty-nine was 39 years ago, but I am not finished yet. I can go back even further. The identical provision with an identically worded defence to that in the 1959 and 1979 Acts was contained in Section 19 of the Wages Councils Act 1945. We have a history of the proposed Section 48 going back no fewer than 53 years, but always with the two defences which the Government are surreptitiously trying to drop.
  Clause 48 is a tried and tested clause, complete with two entirely proper defences going back through no fewer than five Acts of Parliament and two of those Acts were introduced under old Labour governments. When the present new Labour Government again introduce this tried and tested provision in the present Bill, they quietly deleted those long-standing defences which are intended to protect a wholly innocent person who is able to prove that any offence was not his fault but the fault of a third party.
  Why have the Government sought to create an absolute offence when, for over half a century, there has been a defence in certain circumstances? We want to know who gave the instructions for the removal of those
  70
  two defences. Which Minister was it? No less important a question is this: why, in the notes to the Bill, did the DTI incorrectly claim that the present clause "closely"—again I emphasise that word—follows Section 22 of the Wages Act 1986? Which Minister, after deleting the two defences, gave instructions for the word "closely" to be inserted in the notes, which clearly and obviously originally read,
  "this clause follows the approach of section 22 of the former Wages Act 1986"?
  It does not remotely do so because of the omission of those two important subsections containing defences which were included in all the five Acts which directly preceded the present Bill. I should like to know the reason not only for the proposed exclusion of defences but also for the deceptive way in which the Government dealt in the notes with that major change—notes which stand the facts completely on their head—by saying that Clause 48 closely follows Section 21 of the 1986 Act when it does not.
  I realise that the Minister cannot be expected to answer those questions immediately. However, they are not rhetorical questions. I trust therefore that the Minister will agree to give me a detailed written reply to both those questions before the next stage of the Bill. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and the noble Lords, Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Haskel, are all persons of the highest integrity and we can rely on them to give a full answer to these serious questions.
  My amendment adds a simple, uncomplicated, easily understood and reasonable defence. However, the Minister need not spend too much time in commenting on the amendment because I do not intend to press it tonight. The reason for that is that I expect the Government to introduce at a later stage an amendment incorporating into the present clause the tried and tested wording of the 1986 Act and its four predecessors.
  I realise that the Minister cannot give me such an undertaking today. As the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, pointed out at the beginning of the debate last Monday, at col. 1380, he is not in charge of the Bill; it is the Minister of State in the other place who is in charge. Perhaps it is to him the Minister should first direct our questions as to who altered the original section and ordered the incorrect insertion of the word "closely". I beg to move.
  Lord Skelmersdale: Before the noble and learned Lord responds to the interesting and incredibly well-researched speech of my noble friend, perhaps he can respond to my question, which is much more fundamental.
  I ask the noble and learned Lord to put his mind to the concept of small businesses. A small business will have an employer, could well have a foreman or supervisor and of course will have an employee. In relation to this Bill, and ultimately the Act, surely it is the employer who is responsible for paying not less than the minimum wage; the foreman or the supervisor has nothing to do with that. Therefore, if the supervisor or the foreman is "deemed" under this clause—and

  71
  assuredly they would be—surely the Bill is striking at the wrong target. It is the employer who decides on the wages, not the foreman or the supervisor.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Perhaps I may deal first with the point made so effectively by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, in relation to the wording of Clause 48. The point she made with great vigour was that the Government had said through the Notes on Clauses that this is the same as Section 22 of the Wages Act 1986. She said that it is the same as Section 22(1) but that it is not the same as the remainder of that section because the remainder of that section has provision whereby, if the commission of an offence is due to the act or default of some other person, that other person is not guilty of an offence. It also says that in any proceedings for an offence under subsection (1) or (2) above it shall be a defence for the person to prove that he exercised all due diligence and took all reasonable precautions to secure that the provisions of this Act, and of any relevant regulations made under it, were complied with by himself and by any person under his control.
  The structure of the Bill is that where there is a superior employer—someone above the immediate employer—he is made jointly liable as the employer with the immediate employer where certain specified circumstances are satisfied. If one then goes back to Clause 31 of the Bill, certain defences are included, including the defences which were formerly in Section 22 of the Wages Act 1986.I have not had a chance to compare precisely the defences under Section 22 of the Wages Act 1986 with the defences in Clause 31 because I did not know that this point would be raised. However, by the way the noble Baroness read them, they seem to be precisely the same defences as are included in Clause 31 of the National Minimum Wage Bill. The one that can be seen most obviously as being the same is in subsection (8) of Clause 31, which is the "I did everything I could" defence—the due diligence defence.
  The noble Baroness's point would be a good one if it was good on the facts. However, fortunately from the point of view of the structure of the Bill, I think it is wrong because these defences apply to anyone, whether he be a superior employer or not. Of course I shall check that that is the position, but I think it is. So, with respect to the noble Baroness, I think that her speech was based on a fundamental misconception. In those circumstances, I think it would be inappropriate for her to persist in the allegation that there was any deception on the part of the Government in saying that Section 22 has been followed, because I think it has been. Obviously, she will need to check what I have said but I think it was a misconception.
  She said in her speech that I should not bother too much with her actual amendment because this, as she saw it, better point became the fundament of her speech. If I may, I shall accept her invitation. It was accepted in another place that we had introduced this because there would have been considerable scope for abuse if we had not done so. Her amendment proposes that we should
  72
  introduce a caveat to the application of the superior employer rule where the tribunal thought it was not fair and just to apply it. That is simply impracticable as a means of providing protection for people who are employed in this way in, for example, the agricultural industry, the construction industry or the textile industry.
  Perhaps I may deal with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. We are doing precisely what he suggested we are doing. If one does not have this amendment, the target—and the only target—would be, in his parlance, the foreman. One would not have the man who is actually paying the wages. Without Clause 48, the employer would be the foreman. What one needs to do is to bring in the real employer, who is the one above him, in order to make sure that the person who is in reality the employer—the person who is providing the wages—is caught by the Bill. Therefore, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, I think we are doing precisely the reverse of what he suggests we are doing. We are bringing in the person who pays so that there is the real employer before the tribunal or the court.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, perhaps he will consider subsections (6) and (7) of Clause 31. I am not convinced that his explanation in response to my noble friend's amendment stands up. Subsection (6) states:
  "Where the commission by any person of an offence under subsection (1) or (2) above is due to the act or default of some other person, that other person is also guilty of the offence".
  That may be fine, but subsection (7) states:
  "A person may be charged with and convicted of an offence by virtue of subsection (6) above whether or not proceedings are taken against any other person".
  It looks as though it does not necessarily provide a defence because one could gun for both parties whereas there might be only one guilty party.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I think the noble Lord is right to say that subsections (6) and (7) are not defences. I was particularly referring to subsection (8), which states:
  "In any proceedings for an offence under subsection (1) or (2) above it shall be a defence for the person charged to prove that he exercised all due diligence and took all reasonable precautions to secure that the provisions of this Act, and of any relevant regulations made under it, were complied with by himself and by any person under his control".
  Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord.
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The noble and learned Lord has given an interesting reply. We shall certainly want to look carefully at subsection (8) of Clause 31. However, as with all splendid answers, it tends to raise more questions than it resolves. If the head employer is to be deemed for the purposes of this Act to be the employer of the person jointly with the immediate employer, there is in subsection (2) of Clause 31 a requirement about the keeping or preservation of records in accordance with regulations to be made under

  73
  Clause 9. I am not clear that I have understood the structure of this provision correctly. Does that head employer just have to make sure that the other employer with whom he is deemed to be an equal keeps records, or does he have to keep a separate set of records himself in order to comply with the provisions into which, through from that clause and into Clause 31 and Clause 9, he is drawn?
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The effect of Clause 48 is that the head employer—the superior employer—and the immediate employer are to be treated jointly. They are both regarded as employers of the worker jointly. The effect of that is that they are both employers and both have all the obligations of the Bill placed on them. Precisely how they comply with those obligations will depend on the facts in every case. It would be wrong for me to indicate that in a particular case it would or would not be sufficient if the records were kept by one of the two but both had access to them. It would be a question of fact in every case.
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I think the noble and learned Lord will want to return to this point because he will appreciate that, if the outcome of the interplay of these provisions is that a head employer cannot compel the employer who is closer to the employee to keep the records and if he has to keep his own separate set of records, some quite interesting issues begin to be raised about the burdens that might be imposed on relatively small businesses. I am sure it is not the purpose of this Government, any more than it was the purpose of the previous government, to impose unnecessary burdens and red tape on small businesses.
  6.30 p.m.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I fully accept that it is not the Government's intention to impose extra burdens on anyone. We have to remember that the immediate employer will be the employee of the superior employer. Between them one would have thought that they could make sensible arrangements for the keeping of records.
  Lord Skelmersdale: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his instant reaction to my perhaps inopportune question. How does the clause relate to Clause 31(1) to which the noble and learned Lord also referred in the course of his remarks? That clause speaks specifically about the employer. Therefore, does Clause 48 mean, in the noble and learned Lord's terminology, both employers; namely, the head employer and the intermediate employer?
  Viscount Thurso: Before the Minister answers, perhaps I may say that I have become slightly confused between what is an employer and what is not. Is it not all defined in Clause 54 which sets out that there has to be a contract of employment and therefore a simple supervisor cannot be a subordinate? Is that not the answer?
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Perhaps I may first deal with the question of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale.
  74
  It is quite a simple and clear structure. Clause 48 makes both immediate and superior employers joint employers for the purposes of Clause 31. Both can be guilty of an offence in Clause 31 subject to the defences in the clause. That legislative technique is adopted to avoid abuse where the real employer is the superior but he is using the immediate employer as a means of trying to get round this or any other provision.
  As regards the question put by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, broadly it is as simple as he said, subject to Clause 48, except that in Clause 54 there are circumstances in which there could be a relationship which gives rise to the payment of the national minimum wage whereas in strict legal terms there was not a contract of employment. I do not believe that the attractively simple solution he suggests can quite be applied.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: I thank the noble and learned Lord for his explanation. I shall read it very carefully. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 48 agreed to.
  Clause 49 agreed to.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 124:
  After Clause 49, insert the following new clause—
  FINANCIAL STATEMENT AND BUDGET REPORT
  (". The Chancellor of the Exchequer, acting in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall include in the Financial Statement and Budget Report an assessment of the cost of the national minimum wage to Her Majesty's Government in respect of employment costs in the public sector.").
  The noble Baroness said: I made clear to the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, that in moving Amendment No. 124 I would also speak to Amendment No. 125.
  "Unnecessary secrecy in Government leads to arrogance in governance and defective decision making".
  Those are not my words, but the opening sentence of the Government's recent White Paper Your Right to Know: Freedom of Information.
  "The traditional culture of secrecy will only be broken down by giving the people of the United Kingdom a legal right to know".
  Those are not my words, but those of the Prime Minister in his personal introduction to the White Paper.
  In the spirit of those fine sounding words, Amendment No. 125 is a simple but democratically important addition to the Bill. It anticipates the legislation that the Government say they intend to introduce. It can be summarised in a few, short sentences. Subsection (1) requires the Secretary of State and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to lay an annual report before Parliament as to the workings and the effects of the national minimum wage. Subsection (2) entitles the Low Pay Commission to make a similar report to the Secretary of State. If it chooses to do so, she in turn must lay that report before Parliament unless its report is already covered by her own annual report. Subsection (3) sets out nine headings under which the Secretary of State and the Chancellor are required to report. The Low Pay Commission may report on all or

  75
  any of those headings as it thinks fit. Subsection (4) makes it clear that the reports can contain any other material thought to be relevant.
  The purpose of the amendment is purely in the interests of open government—a cause which the present Administration wish to espouse. It ensures that the Secretary of State keeps Parliament fully informed of those consequences—good or bad. It is information that Parliament is entitled to have—good or bad.
  The Government claim that the Bill will have no adverse effect on employment; no adverse effect on industry; no adverse effect on exports; and no adverse effects on the economy generally. If their confidence is not misplaced, then no doubt they will want to trumpet to the entire population the benefits that they have secured for it.
  If our predictions, unhappily, prove to be correct—and it will give us no satisfaction if they are, because of the detrimental effects—then it is only right that the Government should come to Parliament and admit their errors and say what they are going to do about them.
  Apart from the fact that there is absolutely no reason why the Government should not supply the information, this is definitely one amendment that the Government cannot arbitrarily reject, as they have so many others.
  The arguments for the new clause proposed in Amendment No. 124 are precisely the same as those I have just mentioned. Indeed, at one time I contemplated putting both clauses together, but I was advised that there might be different implications between the two.
  Again in the interests of open government, there should be no objection to the Chancellor telling Parliament at the appropriate time of the year how much it is costing the public, both as taxpayers and as council tax payers, to implement the Government's policy. I shall be glad to discuss any constructive modifications which the Minister may wish to suggest about specific aspects of the new clauses.
  Subject to that, if the Government say they are unable to agree to this very reasonable request in the interests of open government, then the information we want them to make public may have to be extracted from them rather in the manner of pulling teeth in an annual series of oral and written Questions which they will not be able to evade. I say "may have to be extracted", because the Committee will understand that I am in no position to predict what will happen in the future. I certainly have no part in tactical decisions. I can only express what is a personal opinion as to what conceivably might happen.
  I do not know whether the Minister had it in mind to agree to these amendments all along. If not, and if he wants time to consider the theoretical consequences that I have suggested might—I stress "might"—follow, I would be willing to afford time for consultation and bring back an agreed amendment or amendments at another stage. I beg to move.
  Lord Razzall: Before the Minister responds, perhaps I may intervene. As he is aware, we on these Benches
  76
  stand four square behind the Government in their determination to ensure that the National Minimum Wage Bill goes through. However, as he well knows, there is an area on which agreement has not been reached with the Government; namely, the area which the noble Baroness has touched on. I and my colleagues have pressed the Minister on a number of occasions and each time he has avoided answering us, with incredible legal and political felicity. As a result of the events of last week we realise why his forensic skills in this area have been put to the test so much.
  However, I would like to take the opportunity to press the Minister again. It is important that the report from the Low Pay Commission is permanently enshrined in our legislative and statutory structure. It is important not only for the reason which the noble Baroness gave as regards full disclosure to the public—we share that view—but, more particularly, because of the fear I expressed last week in response to the Statement. Unless the Low Pay Commission is given permanent status and clear criteria are set out in the Bill as to the form of the report we can expect regularly, then every year we shall have the kind of undignified political football passing that we witnessed last week in the Government's response to the initial report of the commission. Therefore that is why I ask the noble Lord the Minister again to confirm that the Government will give permanent status to the Low Pay Commission and will bring forward amendments at Report stage to make sure that happens.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: If I may, I will speak to Amendment No. 125 at the same time as I speak to Amendment No. 124. Amendment No. 125 is the one which encapsulates what the noble Baroness is after, but that amendment—
  Lord Razzall: I was of course referring in my remarks to the forensic skills of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I assumed that was the position! Amendment No. 125 would require in its first subsection that the Secretary of State and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would together report to Parliament annually on the operation of the national minimum wage. The amendment proposes that they would need to take account of a host of factors: the economy and competitiveness, regional factors, comparative pay, unemployment and benefit levels, training and labour markets, small business, the disabled and age variations.
  These are all factors which the Low Pay Commission has looked at in coming to its recommendations and the obligation in the new clause for Ministers to report annually on them would in effect create a permanent monitoring duty in the Bill. The Government have no argument with the need for monitoring. It is clearly important to monitor the effects of any new legislation, especially in an area as important as the minimum wage, when a country has never before had a universal statutory minimum.
  As with all government policies, we will wish to evaluate the effect of producing a minimum wage in full, which is likely to include most, if not all areas listed

  77
  in the proposed new clause in the amendment put forward by the noble Baroness. The amendment—this is strongly supported by the noble Lord, Lord Razzall—also sees a permanent role for the Low Pay Commission in continuing to monitor the impact of the minimum wage. The Government have made clear in publishing the report of the Low Pay Commission that they wish the commission to continue to monitor and research the impact of the minimum wage following its introduction.
  The criteria listed by the new clause in the amendment look sensible enough, though perhaps not exhaustive. Doubtless, given time, we could all come up with more which could be added. That points to one of the reasons why I ask the Committee to oppose this amendment, if it is pressed, because it is unnecessary and over-rigid to prescribe in primary legislation who should monitor and report on the impact of the legislation, how they should do that and when.
  Furthermore, however important the matters involved may be, it is important to recognise that producing such a report would be an extremely time-consuming exercise and its content could also overlap with other government documents, notably the competitiveness White Paper and possibly, to some extent, Budget documentation. It is therefore preferable to leave this matter open. An annual report from the Secretary of State and the Chancellor specifically on the national minimum wage could easily become seen as part of the annual pay round and lead to expectations of annual increases.
  Turning now to the role of the Low Pay Commission, which was specifically referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, the amendment—and this is supported by the noble Lord—impliedly presumes that the Low Pay Commission will be a permanent body with the power to initiate its own work and make reports, rather than having to wait for matters to be referred to it by the Secretary of State.
  I should start by making it quite clear that the Government fully appreciate the value of the work that the commission has carried out in making its report. I have also already indicated that the Government wish the commission to continue to monitor and report on the impact of the minimum wage following its introduction. The position envisaged by the amendment goes somewhat beyond what the commission was asked to do for its first report. The commission envisaged by this amendment would have the power, it appears, to report on anything it wanted at its own initiative, including a whole range of matters raised and debated previously both in this Chamber and another place at various times during the passage of this Bill. I can imagine that life as a commissioner in such a body would be incredible fun. It would be a job for a very long period indeed and there would be the opportunity to indulge in any particular matter of interest—and all, of course, at the public expense.
  I find it strange that the noble Baroness should support such a powerful and unaccountable body. This runs counter to other amendments she has put forward which seek to constrain and limit the Low Pay Commission's powers. Your Lordships should have no fear. The Government envisage the commission as task
  78
  orientated, and not unlimited. It is right that Ministers, as elected representatives accountable to Parliament, should be responsible for the setting of those tasks, and one of those tasks is that of monitoring, as I have indicated.
  It is in order to maintain the task-orientated focus that the commission must be essentially reactive and not proactive. The commission must, of course, be independent in reaching its views, but the commission's ongoing activity should be within the framework set by politicians. There are good administrative and accountability reasons for this arrangement. I believe that the proposed amendment, together with the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, would go beyond what the Government believe is a common-sense structure for the commission's activities and in relation to reporting to Parliament. I therefore ask the Committee to reject the amendment, if it is pressed.
  6.45 p.m.
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Before my noble friend determines whether or not to withdraw her amendment, can I say to the noble and learned Lord that I thought he glided through that answer extremely skilfully. There is one point, however, on which I should like a little further clarification. There has been some political speculation, doubtless false, in the media to the effect that the Prime Minister is not wholly enamoured of the idea of the permanent existence of this Low Pay Commission. While he certainly indicated in his answer that the Government thought it desirable that there should be a permanent evaluation of what is going on, I am not sure that I actually heard him say that indefinitely and on a permanent basis the Low Pay Commission is to be the body which will do that. I may have misunderstood the position, but if the noble and learned Lord is in a position to say that the Low Pay Commission is to be a body of permanent establishment, it would certainly help to clarify the doubtless wholly unjustified speculation there has been in the media.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I thought—but I was wrong—that my answer was entirely clear. The answer is this: we believe that this sort of policy is one which does require monitoring and evaluation. Secondly, we consider that the Low Pay Commission is a body to whom particular tasks—I see the noble and learned Lord laughs—can be assigned. I think that is perfectly clear.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: I thank the noble and learned Lord the Minister for his reply. When he started I got very excited and thought that perhaps at long last I was going to have one of my amendments accepted just like that. Therefore he will understand why I was slightly disappointed when we came to the end of his reply. However, I will read very carefully what he has said, and at this stage I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 50 agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 125 not moved.]
  Clause 51 [Regulations and orders]:
  Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 126:
  Page 33, line 19, after ("power") insert—

  ("(a) of the Department of Economic Development to make an order under section 26(6) above, or

  (b)")

  The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 126 formally.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 127:
  Page 33, line 22, after ("such") insert ("order or").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 51, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 52 and 53 agreed to.
  Clause 54 [Meaning of "worker", "employee" etc.]:
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 127A:
  Page 34, line 7, after ("person") insert ("(including a partnership)").
  The noble and learned Lord said: I believe that I can move this amendment briefly. The noble and learned Lord will recollect that earlier in this Committee stage we were concerned about whether or not partnerships are to be treated as employers, and, if so, about exactly what liability would be imposed on individual partners. I am very much aware that under the law of Scotland a partnership is regarded as having a separate legal persona. A brief tutorial from the noble and learned Lord might be helpful and enable me to be confident that such a partnership is a "person" in the context of Clause 54, by which I am a little baffled. I trust that the answer will be yes. If the answer is in the affirmative, I wonder whether the definition is necessary. I invite the noble and learned Lord to answer my question in one of two ways. I beg to move.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: In rising to support the amendment, perhaps I may say that I am a little intrigued because we are considering definitions at the moment and the clause states that an "employer" is "the person". An employer might be a person, but it might be a company or a charity. It might even be—heaven help us!—the Government because some people who are employed by the Government are occasionally vulnerable, depending on their employment. I wonder whether for the sake of clarity the clause should not refer to "the person or organisation".
  While I am on my feet, I should add that I am a little concerned by subsection (5). Perhaps I may impose on the noble and learned Lord for a moment and quote from the subsection which defines "employment" as follows:

  "(a) in relation to an employee, means employment under a contract of employment: and

  (b) in relation to a worker, means employment under his contract".

  80
  Apart from the tautology, is not that a totally indecent form of class distinction?
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Perhaps I may deal, first, with the amendment which stands in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, and which was moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie. I am glad to have the opportunity to clarify the position and status of a partnership for the purposes of this Bill. My noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis gave an initial reaction when asked about this point on an earlier occasion in Committee. I am now in a position to give a fuller explanation and shall do so.
  The amendment affects Clause 54(4) as to the meaning of "employer". It makes explicit that the notion of "person"—and therefore "employer"—incorporates a partnership. I can assure the Committee that the amendment is not necessary. By virtue of the Interpretation Act 1978, the word "person", when used in statutes, includes a body of persons whether corporate or unincorporate. A partnership in England and Wales is an unincorporated body of persons that has no separate legal identity. Scottish partnerships are not corporate bodies, but they have a distinct legal personality separate from their partners. The word "person" in Clause 54(4) therefore includes partnerships in both England and Scotland. I believe that that was the fundamental point raised by the noble and learned Lord.
  Partners are jointly and severally liable for the partnership's debts. In England and Wales each partner, some partners or all partners can be sued. In Scotland, only the partnership can be sued although the partners can be sued if the partnership becomes insolvent. None of that means that a worker employed to work for a partnership can recover the minimum wage more than once. There is only one debt and it follows that he can recover it only once. I hope that that fully explains the point raised by the noble and learned Lord when moving the amendment.
  I turn now to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. Clause 54(3) states:
  "'worker' … means an individual who has entered into or works under …

  (a) a contract of employment; or

  (b) any other contract, whether express or implied and (if it is express) whether oral or in writing, whereby the individual undertakes to do or perform personally any work or services".

  Subsection (5)(a) makes it clear that "employment" (in relation to an employee) relates to a contract of employment whereas, under paragraph (b) (in relation to a worker) it relates to a contract that can be wider than a contract of employment because of the provisions of Clause 54(3). It is not a class-based distinction; it is a perfectly sensible distinction based on the wording of this Bill. I could not expect anyone to pick that up, given the speed with which I gabbled through it, but I believe that that is the answer to the noble Lord's point.
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am delighted that my amendment has given the noble and learned Lord an opportunity to display his learning of the law on both sides of the border. I am grateful to him. He has

  81
  reassured me that partnerships are included in these provisions. I still have a small query about whether subsection (4) is necessary, but perhaps the noble and learned Lord would care to reflect on that and possibly discuss it before the next stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 54 agreed to.
  Clause 55 agreed to.
  Clause 56 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
  Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 128:
  Page 35, line 12, at end insert ("but not before one year has elapsed from the day on which the Low Pay Commission makes its report and it is laid before both Houses of Parliament, together with a report from the Secretary of State on the results of consultation undertaken by him with representatives of industry and of small business on the content of the Commission's report or, where these events take place on different days, from the latest such day.").
  The noble Baroness said: I shall not be moving the amendment in view of the fact that the Low Pay Commission recommended, in paragraph 7 of its report, that the national minimum wage should commence in April 1999—that is, in 10 months, compared with the 12 months that I propose in my amendment. I do not believe that that is a difference worth arguing about. However, perhaps I may mention that I would not have been put to the trouble of having to argue the amendment—neither would the Minister nor his officials—if we had had a copy of the commission's report previously.
  [Amendment No. 128 not moved.]
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 56 agreed to.
  7 p.m.
  Schedule 1 [The Low Pay Commission]:
  Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 129:
  Page 36, line 6, after ("and") insert ("at least").
  The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 129, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 130 and 131, which are all drafting amendments to the first schedule of the Bill. The first schedule is to be incorporated into the Act under Clause 8(9) to create a permanent Low Pay Commission to replace the so-called non-statutory one which operates at present, the non-legal functions of which—I do not mean "illegal"—will be retrospectively ratified when the Bill is passed. The schedule sets out the constitution of the Low Pay Commission, makes financial provisions and regulates its proceedings. I should like to take each of my amendments in turn and to explain their purpose.
  Amendment No. 129 seeks to provide for "at least" eight members of the commission. For all I know, eight members may be more than enough—in the minds of some noble Lords, any number might be too many—but there could conceivably be a need for additional members if the complexity of the commission's operations demanded the membership of more experts. I am the last person to encourage an expanded quango
  82
  such as this but, as the provision is purely permissive, it will give the Secretary of State scope to act, if necessary, without coming back to Parliament with an amending Act.
  Schedule 1(2) leaves the Secretary of State with the power to construct the membership in such a way as she may consider "appropriate". What the Secretary of State may consider appropriate may seem far from appropriate to others. Amendment No. 130 requires the Secretary of State to appoint a commission with an equal balance of persons with the necessary qualifications, and not mere token members from one group while packing it with members more amenable to a particular point of view. After all, in employment tribunals consisting of three persons there is a statutory balance between employers and trade unions. Paragraph 1(2)(c), as it currently appears, calls for the inclusion of
  "members with other relevant knowledge or experience".
  but what is relevant? Is it service on other quangos or membership of some purely academic think tank with no practical experience of the real world or knowledge of how to juggle a bank account to meet the payroll on a Friday?
  Two of the qualifications to which the Government have committed themselves are either trade unions or employer organisations. The third qualification to which the Secretary of State has coyly refrained from committing herself is the most essential one: knowledge and experience of business.
  Despite the two earlier paragraphs that require trade union and employer experience, experience of business is the key qualification that the present paragraph omits. That means that it comes in only by interpreting "other relevant knowledge or experience". Why does the Secretary of State not spell it out? Perhaps she wants an escape hatch to avoid the involvement of people from the real world of business. If I am mistaken on the point I am certain that the Minister will explain the reason for this serious omission and perhaps agree to put it right by including representatives of small businesses in any future commission.
  It is as if the Secretary of State, while window dressing a balanced organisation, deliberately wishes to ignore or sideline the unrepresented small business community whose interests are not the same as those looked after by the mighty employer associations. What the CBI or the IoD think is of no interest to a business running a factory with 50 employees, much less the owner of a hairdressing salon.
  That is the explanation for the point that underlies Amendment No. 130. It provides for the inclusion of at least one person who has practical knowledge and experience of running a small business. I do not in any way disparage the qualifications of any of the present members of the commission, especially Mr. Dewar. I am referring simply to the constituent members of the commission on an ongoing basis if the Secretary of State decides that it has any future. It is the small businesses that will be most affected by the national minimum wage, not the giant supermarkets who can easily cover the cost by adding one penny to a loaf of bread or a

  83
  packet of salt; nor will it affect the large industrialists who already pay premium rates for skilled workers. But it will affect the local cake shop or pizza parlour.
  No taxation without representation! The national minimum wage is not a tax but it is money that comes out of someone's pocket. It is only right and proper that the voice of small businesses should be heard, even if it is not to be listened to, as I fear it may not.
  Clause 8(9) of the Bill gives the Secretary of State yet another permissive power which she may exercise or not as she chooses without further reference to Parliament. The power seeks to make the low pay unit an ongoing body once its initial functions on which it is currently engaged have been performed. The Committee should note that that power may be exercised at any time, not within a reasonable time. It may be exercised in a year, two years, four years, some time, never. The point is that whenever the Secretary of State in her wisdom feels the urge to have a Low Pay Commission she is stuck with it, if for whatever reason she later decides that it is redundant.
  Since the Secretary of State is busily giving herself powers to legislate by statutory instrument and all kinds of optional powers while steadily refusing others, she most certainly should have the option, which once again she need never exercise, to close down the Low Pay Commission if it is no longer required without coming back to Parliament with an amending Act.
  I am in some technical difficulty over Amendment No. 131. It appears in the Marshalled List as intended for the end of line 30 on page 36. I believe that it should have gone on page 7 at the end of line 5 which is Clause 8(9) to which I have just referred. The Committee has already agreed Clause 8 stand part and I do not believe that I can go back to it. If the Government accept this very reasonable amendment I believe they will be able to agree where it can be inserted at a later stage of the Bill. For the moment, I apologise to the Committee for not noticing the error until I re-read my notes earlier today. I beg to move.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: The noble Baroness demonstrated once again her deep opposition to the Bill in her closing remarks. I respect her position but I cannot agree with it. She resorted to a number of shibboleths. She said that small businesses were not listened to. That is simply not correct. Small businesses were widely consulted by the Low Pay Commission. The noble Baroness said that no member of the LPC had run a small firm. That is not correct. The member to whom she referred specifically has done so and is currently chief executive of the Scottish Grocers' Federation. It is patently incorrect to say that the views of small firms have not been consulted or considered in these recommendations.
  The noble Baroness disparaged the role of the CBI. I believe that members of the CBI are very knowledgeable about the interests of 190,000 small businesses, and perhaps even medium-sized enterprises. I have said many times that it is wrong to refer in this context to representatives. If the noble Baroness wants
  84
  someone who has experience but is not a representative of any particular interest that is fine, but because these amendments have been drafted in this extraordinary way she has constantly ignored the position of the Government that these people are not there as representatives. Those individuals have expertise. Surely, the correct criteria should be expertise and independence.
  I should like to deal briefly with the remainder of the membership of the LPC. They were appointed not only within the criteria to which I have just referred but in a way that complied fully with the Nolan procedures for public appointments. The Government have stood rigidly by those requirements. The Government stressed in their advertisement for members that they were looking for individuals with experience of a range of industries and services. They were required to display a record of high achievement in the chosen area of expertise.
  We sought to achieve a balance of representation, and I believe that we have succeeded. The commission is there to try to achieve a reasonable consensus among the social partners. The noble Baroness appears to dismiss the trade unions as having no interest and no expertise in this matter. That is patently absurd. I entirely reject that philosophy. It was one of the many things that went wrong with the previous government. The previous government were deaf to many views held widely in the community because of ideology. That is not the input that we wish to make in relation to this or any other policy.
  The commission is not there to act as a forum for different parts of industry to pursue their own interests. We want balance. We do not want advantage. That is the approach which the Bill reflects and which is rejected, of course, by the Opposition.
  Amendment No. 129 asserts that eight should be the minimum number of members rather than the fixed number as at present. There is some advantage in flexibility. That would enable additional members to be appointed, but there is also a disadvantage. I should have thought that it would be clear to most Members of the Committee that there would be a risk of open-endedness and unwieldiness. While the choice of any particular member is, to some extent, arbitrary, we were determined to provide a group—I believe that we succeeded—of a reasonable and manageable size, including the chairman, comprised of three, identifiable, mini groups. That is the right way to achieve balance.
  The fixed size of the commission would enable us to combine a core of expertise and experience with a degree of flexibility and ease of management. The commission is sufficiently comprehensive to ensure a wide spread of interests and a knowledge of the various sectors of our industrial and business life. The commission could draw on extra support from others—people who can provide advice without being appointed as full commission members. That is what the commission has done in going about its business. That is an entirely sensible approach.

  85
  The strongest argument for a group of this size may be that it seems to have worked well for the present non-statutory commission. So is it not sensible to adopt the same criteria for the statutory body?
  Amendment No. 130 would lay down strict rules about the make-up of the commission requiring an equal number of members from the employers' and employees' side. It would leave open the number of members to be appointed as independent experts, but with the upper limit that the independent members could not outnumber the remainder. The effect would be that the commission could, but need not, have a membership of which half consists of independent experts. I am sure that the amendment is a probing one. However it seems to be inconsistent with the general thrust of the case made by members of the Opposition in another place when they discussed the commission's membership.
  It was suggested there that once the commission had made its first report, academics could be weeded out. I do not know what would happen to them after they had been weeded out, but that was the suggestion. They would be replaced by those with direct business experience. The noble Baroness did not go as far as that this evening. By contrast, the amendment would increase substantially the number of academics on the commission.
  All these are matters of judgment. It is a question of balance. I believe that we have struck the balance correctly. It has worked in practice. That surely is the essence of the matter.
  I turn now to Amendment No. 131, to which the noble Baroness alluded. It would require the statutory Low Pay Commission to continue to exist once appointed—by default, as it were—until the Secretary of State is satisfied that there is no purpose in the commission continuing. I thought that I heard the noble Baroness argue that she wanted the whole thing wound up; but, there it is, she wants it to go on indefinitely.
  I believe that the noble Baroness is saying that the commission should be wound up once it had no significant functions to undertake. My noble friend referred earlier to the way in which the commission would work. It would be task-oriented; it would be linked to need. That is the basis for any future appointment of a statutory commission. On completing its task, we intend that the commission be disbanded if there is nothing further for it to do. The amendment assumes that the commission will have continuing duties, beyond reporting to the Secretary of State on the matters referred to it.
  Once the commission has reported on all the matters referred to it, it will have nothing further to do. There will be no point in continuing its existence. To some extent we are in unknown territory, because it is the first time that we have had a national minimum wage. So it is right to see what the impact is, and what follow-up will be necessary. We envisage the commission having a part to play in all that. We want monitoring of and reporting on the impact of a minimum wage, following
  86
  its introduction. The amendment is superfluous or uncertain in its effect. I ask the Committee to reject it.
  Perhaps I may mention at this stage, because I believe that it will be the last opportunity for me to do so, and it is appropriate for me to say this before we close the Committee proceedings, that there will be another small batch of government amendments on Report. I had already indicated to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, that some further technical amendments would be coming. I can assure the Committee that the amendments are highly technical. They are nearly all linked to and relate to the bodies for which the Secretary of State may make arrangements under Clause 13 for their officers to act as minimum wage enforcement officers, and the position that could arise following devolution as a result of the Scotland Bill. There is also one purely drafting amendment.
  I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I do not go into detail at this stage. I can assure the Committee that we shall be tabling the amendments shortly. I shall be writing with a detailed explanation to the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, as I did earlier for the other government amendments. Disappointed though I am sure she is, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
  7.15 p.m.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: I once again thank the Minister for the courteous way in which he dealt with my amendment this afternoon. Having formerly been involved in a small business, I do not believe that small businesses are represented sufficiently. I regret that. I say that in view of the many amendments that I moved today about spouses and so forth. However, I understand what the Minister has said.
  The Minister referred to Amendment No. 131. I am merely asking for a little more flexibility. I am not saying that the commission should go on for ever. I am trying to ensure that the Secretary of State has the flexibility that she requires. This is the final amendment that I move at this stage of the Bill. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, for the courteous and good humoured way they rejected all of my reasonable amendments, even though I argued them—in their words—so beguilingly. Nevertheless, at the next stage, I shall be returning to some of the amendments that I withdrew or did not move, by which time I hope that the Minister will have persuaded the Secretary of State to take a more positive attitude.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: Before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may say that she has been most courteous and kind as she always is. I cannot call her my noble friend, although I can call her my friend, in other respects, as she knows. Both noble Baronesses and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, have been articulate—I cannot say helpful. This is not the appropriate time to thank everyone. I shall reserve that for another occasion.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 130 and 131 not moved.]
  Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.
  Schedule 3 [Repeals and revocations]:
  Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 132:
  Page 52, column 3, leave out lines 45 to 47.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
  House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the early completion of the National Minimum Wage Bill means that the time available for this evening's Unstarred Question is no longer limited to the one-hour dinner adjournment. The debate can now run for a maximum of one and a half hours. This change does not affect the maximum time available to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, or my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn. But it increases the maximum time available for other speakers from six minutes to nine minutes. On the other hand, if, as I am sure they have, noble Lords have prepared their speeches in a succinct and concise way to last six minutes, I am sure the House will be grateful if they do not pad them out.

  Witnesses in Criminal Trials
  7.21 p.m.
  Baroness Byford Baroness Byford rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what progress they are making in reviewing the way in which vulnerable or intimidated witnesses are treated in the criminal justice system, with particular reference to witnesses in trials of rape or indecent assault.
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am not a lawyer or a magistrate but I was an active member of the Women's Royal Voluntary Service in Leicestershire. We worked alongside the police and the Prison Service and gave practical help to witnesses and their families at the Crown Court. I count myself fortunate to bring this Question before your Lordships tonight. I thank those noble Lords who will follow me.
  I wish to begin by commending to anyone who has not yet seen it the Home Office report, Speaking up for Justice. The interdepartmental group makes 78 recommendations. Therefore I have to conclude that our current system leaves a great deal to be desired. Moreover, none of the recommendations is earth shattering or extreme. On the contrary, they read as condensed, common sense recommendations.
  I am sure that subsequent speakers will share their expert knowledge of facets of the system. However, I call to your Lordships' attention one aspect which both disgusts and repels me and millions like me. I refer to the crime of rape and the treatment of the victim by the medical inspection team, the police, the legal service,
  88
  the courts and the media. It is treatment which sells newspapers, fills public galleries and allows victims to be pilloried for their innocence. It is treatment which is deplored but still continues on one pretext or another. "Well, it's mainly date rape", seems to be in vogue at the moment, as though being on first name terms with one's victim makes it more acceptable. On the contrary, date rape and, more importantly, rape within a relationship are not only assaults but a betrayal of trust.
  During the passage of the Criminal Justice Bill through this House in February and March of this year, my noble friend Lady Anelay spoke of our concern at the way in which victims are dealt with in our courts. I accept that the accused person is entitled to a fair trial and has rights, but so, too, has the victim.
  Witnesses may be divided initially into two groups: those who are the victim; and those who are bystanders. Both types come in all ages and range from the articulate and the educated to those suffering from learning disabilities, or physical or mental illness. They all face a system which encompasses reporting the crime, assisting the police, making a statement, perhaps attending an identity parade, reporting to the court, giving evidence, undergoing cross-examination, awaiting the verdict and then living with the consequences. The way in which those persons are dealt with varies from area to area, court to court and official to official. Unfortunately our criminal justice system sometimes does too little to protect the weak, the disadvantaged, the abused and the frightened.
  I have the privilege of knowing a very brave lady who was herself a victim—in her case multiple rape over a period of hours during which she was imprisoned by her attacker. She has not had to cope with being cross-examined by her attacker. He pleaded guilty. Noble Lords should know that he was convicted of an earlier rape upon his long-term partner.
  While we were awaiting the report, much was being said. On 20th May of this year the Home Secretary confirmed that defendants in rape trials will be barred from cross-examining their victims in court. This was less than two weeks after the Lord Chief Justice had urged judges to put an end to lengthy and humiliating cross-examination of victims by defendants. It has also been reported that the Home Secretary proposes to prevent the accused from conducting his own defence and to introduce restrictions on the admissibility of sexual history in evidence. I am sure those measures will be welcomed; but when will they be introduced?
  The charity, Victims of Justice, in an article on 7th March of this year quoted 1,842 reported rapes in 1985 and some 5,039 in 1994, with a conviction rate which fell from 24 per cent., or 442 cases, to 8.4 per cent., or 423 cases.
  On 17th June this year, the Guardian stated that of the 5,759 reported rapes in the previous 12 months, only 1,380, or 24 per cent., actually reached court. In the main this was supposed to be due to a fall in rape by total strangers from 552 in 1985 to 460 in 1997–98; and to the difficulty of proving rape by an acquaintance or friend.
  The criminal justice system already sets limits on the court procedures applied to children and those with special educational needs. The charity, Victim Support, feels that those limits should be set on the cross-examination of rape victims by their aggressors, since it feels that to rely on judges' discretion is to trust that they will implement the guidelines and risk the judgment being overturned on appeal.
  I turn now to the details in the report. The interdepartmental review supports many of the views I have expressed. Many of its recommendations could be implemented quickly and at little extra cost. I give a few examples. Recommendation 36 refers to the use of CCTV in the courtroom. Recommendation 39 relates to media restrictions on the reporting of details likely to lead to the identification of witnesses. Recommendation 43 refers to preserving the dignity of witnesses by disallowing unnecessarily aggressive or inappropriate cross-examination. Recommendation 44 relates to restricting the right of multiple defendants to raise the same point more than once.
  Recommendation 52 refers to locating witnesses so that they cannot be viewed from the public gallery. Recommendation 53 refers to providing separate facilities for medical examination of the victim or the suspect. Recommendation 58 refers to the introduction of a mandatory prohibition for unrepresented defendants personally to cross-examine their victims. Those are only a few of the 78 recommendations, but even their implementation might encourage more victims to press charges and take their attackers to court.
  I spoke earlier of my friend who openly and gratefully acknowledges the treatment which she received in Leicestershire. After her attack, she was looked after with great consideration, compassion, kindness and competence. Officers and voluntary support workers alike treated her with great humanity and helped her to maintain her dignity. I would not wish any Member of this House to think that our criminal justice system is all bad; like the curate's egg, it is good in parts.
  In Leicestershire, the police force is using 1 per cent. of its sponsorship to raise £20,000 to establish specialist units in two Leicester hospitals. They will give a more friendly welcome to people who are under stress. The facilities at one hospital have already been identified and both are planned to be ready for opening in April 1999. The project would not have been possible without business sponsorship and support from local groups and individuals. It is a good example of the community's commitment to supporting vulnerable people. The units, with their specialist video facilities and counselling rooms, bring together the police, the health trust, social services and the voluntary sector, which are all so important in giving support when a person first reports a crime.
  I commend the Home Office report to your Lordships. As the Law Society stated, there should be national standards and detailed guidance covering the treatment of vulnerable witnesses at all stages. I agree and I urge your Lordships to use your expertise in encouraging others to take on board many of these recommendations.
  90
  In doing so, I hope that other victims will be encouraged not only to come forward but to press their cases through the courts.
  7.31 p.m.
  Lord Borrie: My Lords, I warmly welcome the way in which the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, initiated tonight's debate. The recently published report, to which the noble Baroness referred, makes it clear that there are vulnerable and intimidated witnesses other than the most obvious examples of young children and adults who have communication or learning difficulties. Ordinary adults, those who are normally self-confident and even robust, can be intimidated by what is to them the peculiar circumstances of a criminal trial, particularly when being questioned about the most intimate and personal matters. It is good that the Government have already indicated their broad support for many of the recommendations. The noble Baroness mentioned that there are 78, and it is unlikely even that our hard working Minister will be able to respond to all of them tonight as the report was published only two weekends ago.
  I wish to concentrate on the way in which children are treated in the criminal justice system, particularly when they are victims or witnesses in trials for rape or indecent assault. I must declare an interest as a member of the fundraising board of the Justice for Children Appeal. For reasons which your Lordships will appreciate, it was established by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. The body was set up in order to focus attention on the particular kind of cruelty which can be involved when children are caught up in a system which has been devised for adults. The worst kind of cruelty may be when the victim of child abuse must go through the ordeal of giving evidence. That can be as traumatic as the abuse which he or she originally experienced. I suggest that there is a wider public interest than that of avoiding unnecessary cruelty to one victim: if a child is too distressed and too bewildered to tell his or her story, the guilty person will walk free and may well harm other children.
  My noble friend the Minister is a former trustee of the NSPCC. He will be aware that a survey by the society in 1995 found that the system so badly affected children that 75 per cent. said that they would not report abuse if it happened again and 25 per cent. said that the court case was as bad or worse than the abuse itself.
  I believe that two needs are almost self-evident. The first is the availability of help and support for child victims and witnesses. The second is to make appropriate changes in law and practice in order to ensure that our system of criminal justice is more sensitive to the needs of children.
  A year or so ago I was greatly impressed when I visited the south London branch of the NSPCC child witness support service in Penge. Teams of helpers are available to give children and their families practical and, just as important, emotional support when children are preparing for the unfamiliar experience of giving evidence in court. The team tries to answer the kind of questions and worries which children typically have.

  91
  The excellent and long-experienced organiser, Maureen Carson, says that the most common worry of children is that they will be sent to gaol rather than the accused. As Mrs. Carson puts it, if that is at the back of their minds, they can hardly concentrate on what they are saying. The most obvious objective of the Justice for Children Appeal Fund is to raise the £2 million to £3 million needed to provide equivalents of the south London team and others elsewhere so that there is a comprehensive network of adequately resourced support and advocacy teams throughout the country.
  However, as the noble Baroness indicated, in relation to adults as well as children, for whom I seek to speak, there is a need to improve the criminal justice system itself. It would be wrong of me to suggest that only the NSPCC and other private bodies such as Victim Support have a monopoly on concern. This Government and the previous government have sought to be active in, for example, commissioning research and evaluating existing legal provisions which enable the use of video recorded evidence. The Government have worked with the NSPCC in seeking to reduce the awful time-lag before cases come to trial—that must be worse for children than adults—and in revising what is called the "Young Witness Pack", which I have with me and which was made available at its official launch on Friday last by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, the Lord Chief Justice.
  It is true that in many cases a child will be screened off from the man charged with abusing her and allowed to give video taped evidence. But that is not universal and it is nine years since the Pigot Report, commissioned by the Home Office, proposed that children should invariably be cross-examined in a child-friendly environment where they will feel more relaxed before the trial, with a video of their answers being shown to the jury. Only rarely, when new evidence arises requiring cross-examination, would they need to be called into the court itself.
  I notice that paragraph 8.56 of the recently published Home Office interdepartmental report states:
  "This recommendation has not been implemented. It has been argued that pre-trial cross-examination would not remove the need for further cross-examination by the defence at the trial and might add to the child's distress in having to go through the cross-examination on more than one occasion".
  However, it refers also to the recently published Utting report; that is, the report by Sir William Utting in 1997 entitled People Like Us which recommends the implementation of the nine year-old Pigot report in the way that I am suggesting. There should invariably be cross-examination beforehand in a child-friendly atmosphere and it should be video-recorded. I hope that the Government will look very favourably on the ideas in the report.
  7.40 p.m.
  Lord Meston: My Lords, since this Question was first tabled for debate and since the specific topic of rape cases was last debated at the Report stage of the Crime and Disorder Bill there have been, as your Lordships have already heard, three important developments.
  92
  First, there is the judgment of the Court of Appeal in the case of Brown (Milton) on 6th May stating that it was clear duty of the trial judge to do all that he could, consistently with giving the defendant a fair trial, to minimise the trauma suffered by the other participants in the court process. That judgment contains a firm, authoritative restatement of the judge's power to control and curtail those dangerous, unrepresented defendants who try to get some sort of a "kick" out of humiliating cross-examination of their victims to add insult to injury. The judge has to ensure that any defendant has a proper opportunity to put his case and that the defendant is not prejudiced in the eyes of the jury. The judge has also the power to insist that the defendant does actually put his case to the witness, and the power to insist that he does not unnecessary report himself; and, if necessary, the judge can import a timetable on the defendant as on any advocate.
  It has to be remembered that those problem cases of unrepresented defendants charged with sexual offences are only few in number. But they can have a disproportionate deterrent effect on other victims of sexual offences, not least because what is reported in the press is the fact of the personal cross-examination of the victim by the defendant and the judge's comments usually at the stage of sentencing after conviction. However, the press does not report the controlling measures taken by the judge, and his remarks to the defendant in the absence of the jury during the trial itself. It is noticeable that in the case of Brown, the Court of Appeal observed that the judge had done everything he thought he could do to protect the complainants.
  The second important development is the recent report of the interdepartmental working group on the treatment of vulnerable and intimidated witnesses in the criminal justice system. On the particular problem of direct, personal cross-examination by defendants, the report recommends a mandatory prohibition in cases of rape and serious sexual assault, with a number of other proposals for dealing with the most intransigent defendants. Some people will say that the right of the defendant to represent himself, however incompetently, and subject to firm control by the trial judge, should not be infringed just because of a small number of difficult cases. They will argue that video technology or screens in court can be tried before altogether barring personal cross-examination by the defendant. It can also be said that by no means all defendants who act in person, unrepresented, do so aggressively or unpleasantly; some conduct themselves properly and politely. However, on balance I think that the recommendations of the report provide the better solution for this problem in the small number of cases in which it arises.
  Of far more significance in cases of alleged rape and sexual offences, whether or not the defendant is represented, is the recommendation in the report for amendment of Section 2 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 concerning evidence and questioning about a complainant's recent sexual history. The vagueness of the existing statutory provision, only relieved to some extent by decided case law, is a reflection of how difficult that problem is and will

  93
  remain. The report points to alternative legislative provisions in Scotland and New South Wales. Any amendment to the 1976 Act which is to be an improvement must do more than simply replace one set of provisions with another set of provisions which are just as vague and subjective but in different ways. That is what is said to have happened to the Canadian criminal code. If the Scottish model is to be used, there most certainly must be further consultation and research, followed by the use of considerable drafting skills which will be required to provide a fair, workable and lasting replacement for the 1976 Act.
  The working group's report is an impressive and comprehensive piece of work dealing with a much wider range of problems than those particularly referred to in the Question before the House. It covers all types of vulnerable witnesses and their treatment both in and out of court and explores both the law and practical procedures. Out of court, it suggests that victim support schemes are somewhat patchy geographically. In court, I welcome the report's premise that there should be a generally available "menu" of measures to help witnesses.
  The report recognises that the system of justice depends on the willingness and ability of witnesses to give evidence and that the quality of their evidence depends on removing stress and inconvenience. Lawyers take for granted going to court and talking in public. We sometimes forget how nerve-racking some people find the whole experience, whether or not they themselves have been the victims of the crimes alleged. I remember calling a dentist to give expert evidence in a civil case and after two harmless questions from me in examination in chief, he passed out. On coming round, he said he found the whole experience a terrible ordeal. It did not seem to me to be the time and place to remind him how we feel when going to the dentist.
  However, there is much in the report of practical assistance. Witnesses no longer have to give their addresses in criminal cases. Children often give their evidence after the lawyers and the judge have removed their wigs. Moreover, I certainly welcome recommendation 52, to which the noble Baroness referred, concerning the placing of what is now inappropriately called the public gallery. In our user-friendly courts, the supporters and friends of the defendant are often uncomfortably close to the witness box.
  As the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, said, how much more difficult it must be for child witnesses having to describe matters which adults find awkward to talk about. The time limits on this debate prevent further discussion. However, I welcome recommendations 45 and 46 of the report in relation to video recorded pre-trial cross-examination as proposed in the so far unimplemented Pigot Report. That will add to the existing law in ensuring that a child's evidence is tested when it is still fresh; it will relieve the pressures on child witnesses which can lead to charges having to be dropped; and it will encourage early and realistic pleas of guilty.
  94
  The most encouraging part of the report comes at the very end, in Annex J, where current initiatives and research into child evidence are summarised. They include the third recent development which should be mentioned—the launch last week of the "young witness pack". The work of the NSPCC in the whole area of helping young witnesses—work which some years ago was suspected by the judiciary as tainting the evidence of children—is now justifiably respected in reducing the ordeal for them and in improving the quality of their evidence. Cases involving children require special handling and skills. No judge, magistrate or advocate should be involved in cases involving child witnesses on important issues without having seen the good practice video "A Case for Balance' produced by the NSPCC last year.
  The aggressive advocacy or the clumsy, stilted questioning, which are just tolerable in cases involving adults, are not acceptable when children are giving evidence. The legal profession is aware of the importance of that point in terms of training and professional conduct. The speed, efficiency and sensitivity with which cases are handled within the criminal justice system, dealing with what happened to children in the past, have considerable implications for the progress and outcome of their cases in the family justice system which decides what happens to them in the future.
  7.50 p.m.
  Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: My Lords, I welcome this opportunity which has been given to us by the noble Baroness to discuss the treatment of vulnerable witnesses within our legal system. As we have already heard, a report has been published on vulnerable and intimidated witnesses. That report contains an important set of recommendations which I hope will find their way into the system at some point and into legislation where that is appropriate.
  I have spent over 25 years practising at the Bar within the criminal justice system. During that time I have taken up opportunities to speak to women's organisations up and down the country. I have probably done so more often than any other lawyer in this House. Those women's organisations have covered the spectrum of political opinion and of age groups. They include women of every colour and women who are students as well as professional women. I have spoken to women who are knowledgeable about the law and to women who know little about it. From those discussions has emerged the concern that women feel at the way in which offences against women, such as rape and indecency, are dealt with by the courts.
  Women will repeatedly tell you that if such an offence were perpetrated on them or on their children they would be unsure whether to take the step of commencing legal proceedings. It is shameful that even women magistrates will often say, "I am not sure I would expose myself or a member of my family to such a process". However, much headway has been made. Considerable shifts have occurred in the policing and investigation of sexual offences. There has been a great improvement in the responses of the courts.

  95
  However, we still have a long way to go. If we want to gain the public's confidence in the system, we need to do a great deal of work in this area.
  The low conviction rate in rape cases is still a scandal which we must address. I am pleased that the Government wish to take a number of measures as regards trials for rape and indecency. One of the remaining problems is the profound resistance of the profession and of the Bench to changes in what are perceived to be fundamental rules. Yet considerable change has occurred with regard to children giving evidence in our courts. The system has not collapsed under the novelty of that change. Over a number of years many of us expressed concern about the way in which children were cross-examined in the courts as children were terrified to give evidence on matters which made them feel profound shame. They were terrified of giving evidence about adults with whom they had often had a relationship.
  Following the Pigot Report, interesting and yet resisted changes occurred. Two-way video is now used regularly in our courts to allow children to give evidence without their having to enter the courtroom at all. They can give evidence in an adjoining room and be able to see the lawyer or the judge who is speaking to them. Wigs are removed. Children's experience of giving evidence has been greatly improved. However, those changes were resisted by much of the Bar and by some on the Bench. It was said that one of the basic rules of our system is that witnesses should give evidence in person and defendants should have the opportunity to see them across a courtroom. However, the changes I have mentioned have not interfered with justice. I welcome the fact that the report suggests that where a court or a judge considers that an adult witness may be vulnerable similar steps may be taken to protect such witnesses in trials involving sexual offences.
  The profound conservatism of the Bar is often concerned with ensuring that defendants' rights are protected. As a lawyer committed to the rights of defendants I am anxious to ensure that those rights are maintained. However, I strongly support the recommendation that a prohibition is made on unrepresented defendants personally cross-examining complainants in cases of rape and serious assault. A number of cases have occurred where such cross-examination has continued for a number of days. Noble Lords such as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, say that experienced judges can hold the reins in the courtroom and can prevent such cross-examination. However, in the case of particular defendants that becomes unseemly and impossible. Not all judges have the force of personality of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and can strike sufficient terror into a person's heart to prevent that kind of behaviour by a defendant. It is not fitting for the system to witness the kind of exchanges that would inevitably occur if judges alone had to prevent invasive cross-examination. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, spoke of the deterrent effect on women of some cases that have occurred. It is shocking to hear women speak at public meetings of their fear that this is a choice available to
  96
  their assailant which he may well exercise, as it can strike fear into the victim and possibly prevent her giving evidence.
  I welcome the change we are discussing. I hope that it is not resisted by my noble friends. However, I note that some of my colleagues from the Bar will speak after me in this debate. I suspect that they will err on the side of conservatism. It is important that for once we listen to what women are saying about the way in which the criminal justice system has failed them. This matter is particularly important as regards cases where women are related to, or have had a relationship with, the man who is cross-examining them. Often men who have an obsessive interest in a previous partner are the very people who choose to cross-examine them. This also occurs in domestic violence cases. I welcome Recommendation 59 which states that in particular circumstances the prohibition can extend to other kinds of case according to the judge's discretion.
  I also welcome the restriction that will be imposed on the cross-examination of women on their sexual history. The report suggests that we should consider the situation in Scotland or in New South Wales in making that limitation. I make another suggestion; namely, that the Government should consider the case of Regina v. Morgenthaller. That case came before the Supreme Court in Canada. The judgment in that case became seminal in the Canadian system in relation to the handling of rape cases. The judgment was given by Madame Justice Beverley McLoughlin, a Supreme Court judge. She was interesting about the way in which judges, prior to that judgment, as here in Britain, very often allowed the cross-examination of victims inappropriately—where it was unacceptable and invasive—as a result of their inappropriate attitude to women's sexuality. Men in our courts still often have the view that certain kinds of women invite sexual assault. There is often an indulgence given to men on trial that they are somehow the victims of their own libido, and that somehow, like the washing machine cycle, once they are turned on there is no going back. Women are held responsible for male activity.
  I therefore urge the House to support the recommendation that we introduce and examine other ways of dealing with sexual history and seek to reduce cross-examination in relation to it; and that we accept the body of evidence from Professor Sue Lees that this kind of cross-examination is being allowed much too regularly by our judges.
  Finally, good judicial training can remedy many of the faults of our judiciary with regard to the conduct of these cases. I hope that those judges in our midst will lend their weight to good training on gender issues within our legal system.
  8.1 p.m.
  Lord Ackner: My Lords, I seek in no way to detract from my total acceptance that rape is a serious offence for which a period of imprisonment is almost inevitable. It is so serious in some cases that a sentence of imprisonment for life is properly imposed. I also accept entirely that a woman is entitled to withdraw her consent

  97
  at any stage—although, if the signals change from green to red without any intermediate amber, she must not be surprised if from time to time juries acquit.
  My first point is that there are a number of special rules which apply to rape cases and to cases of serious sexual offences. There is the anonymity that is conferred upon the complainant. There is the restriction on questioning designed merely to go to the issue of her credibility which would be permitted in relation to other offences. We have recently removed the obligation to give directions on corroboration which contained a warning to juries about the various unsuspected motives that there might be for a made-up case. What we have not yet reached—and I am delighted that that is the case—is changing the onus of proof. It is still obligatory for the prosecution to prove the case against a defendant beyond all reasonable doubt.
  I make that point because the phrase, "victims of rape", is used throughout the Home Office report. I refer to pages 61, 64, 65, 66 and 67. Strangely enough, it is even used in the Bar Council briefing. That gives the impression that the case is already decided or that there is some prima facie assumption to be made against the defendant. That is utterly wrong. The term "victim" should in every case refer to "the complainant". That is what we are concerned with. A victim is someone against whom the offence has been committed.
  I have made submissions twice recently to your Lordships in relation to the Crime and Disorder Bill, both in Committee and on Report. It gives me a profound sense of relief, as it no doubt does to your Lordships, that there is no need for me to repeat those submissions because I find that a great deal of what I said, and what was said by the former Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane, has been repeated by the current Lord Chief Justice in the case of Regina v. Brown, to which reference has been made. In regard to my previous comment about victims of crime, I wish to refer to what was said by the Lord Chief Justice. His judgment states at page 6:
  "Where, for example, a defendant is accused of rape, the trial cannot be conducted on the assumption that he is a rapist and the complainant a victim, since the whole purpose of the proceeding is to establish whether that is so or not".
  I submit that the recommendation of the Home Office committee is flawed because it does not draw a distinction between the two distinct categories of rape. One is "date rape", referred to on 15th June in an article in The Times giving an indication of what the special Home Office committee was in the process of discovering. The article states:
  "Half of rapes are 'date rapes' by boyfriends, former partners or a close friend … The finding—an increase from 35 per cent [to 50 per cent. between 1985 and nowt—is thought to account in part for a sharp drop in the conviction rate".
  The article points out that although rapes reported to the police rose by 14 per cent. in the period 1996–97, the conviction rate fell from 24 per cent. in 1985 to 9 per cent. in 1996. The article continues:
  "Initial findings suggest that this might be related to a large proportion of rapes involving intimates (date rape) being reported and those offences tend to be more difficult to prove than those involving strangers".
  98
  Rapes by strangers fell from 30 per cent. to 8 per cent. of the total.
  I submit that it is utterly unrealistic to say that a defendant in the date rape type of case should be debarred from personally asking questions. His reason for wishing to ask questions may not be idiosyncratic. It may be due to the belief, which may be a justified one, that the complainant, when faced by him asking questions, will no longer be able to continue to lie about what occurred. To suggest that someone intimately known to the complainant should not be allowed to ask any questions is totally unjust.
  In regard to rape by a stranger, the position is significantly different. Once again, we have the advice of the Lord Chief Justice in the Brown case, which reads as follows:
  "Judges do not lack power to protect witnesses and control questioning. The trial judge is the master of proceedings in his court. He is not obliged to give an unrepresented defendant his head to ask whatever questions, at whatever length, the defendant wishes. In a case such as the present it will often be desirable, before any question is asked by the defendant of the complainant in cross-examination, for the trial judge to discuss the course of proceedings with the defendant in the absence of the jury. The judge can then elicit the general nature of the defence and identify the specific points in the complainant's evidence with which the defendant takes issue, and any points he wishes to put to her. If the defendant proposes to call witnesses in his own defence, the substance of their evidence can he elicited so that the complainant's observations on it may, so far as relevant, be invited. It will almost always be desirable in the first instance to allow a defendant to put questions to a complainant, but it should be made clear in advance that the defendant will be required, having put a point, to move on, and if he fails to do so the judge should intervene and secure compliance. If the defendant proves unable or unwilling to comply with the judge's instructions the judge should, if necessary in order to save the complainant from avoidable distress, stop further questioning by the defendant or take over the questioning of the complainant himself. If the defendant seeks by his dress, bearing, manner or questions to dominate, intimidate or humiliate the complainant, or if it is reasonably apprehended that he will seek to do so, the judge should not hesitate to order the erection of a screen, in addition to controlling questioning in the way that we have indicated".
  I ask the Minister to indicate to what extent the judiciary was consulted by the civil servants who sat on this committee. It does not look as if those civil servants have had the advantage of the practical advice that would be given by practitioners and members of the judiciary. I suggest that we leave this matter to the advice given by the Lord Chief Justice, knowing that it will be emphasised by the Judicial Studies Board in its relevant courses.
  8.12 p.m.
  Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, as a criminal lawyer frequently engaged in trials which concern sexual offences, vulnerable witnesses and, sadly, child witnesses, I should declare an interest. I should also declare an interest as one of the women to whom my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws referred. If either of my two young teenage girls came to me with an allegation of sexual attack, I would, as a result of my own experiences, think very long and hard before urging them to take the matter to the police and thence through the courts, which is perhaps some indication of how wrong I think matters are at present.

  99
  That said, I am bound to sound a note which may perhaps sound slightly discordant to some of those who have spoken before. Although most of the report is admirable in the extreme, I detect in some parts of it an understated assumption—indeed one which is clearly stated in Recommendation 43—that witnesses in the criminal courts, particularly vulnerable ones and ones who are intimidated, are inevitably truthful. Recommendation 43 speaks of witnesses "performing a public duty". I have no doubt that the vast majority of them are doing so or are trying to do so; but any changes which we now make must take into account the fact that some witnesses, including some vulnerable witnesses, are not.
  My experiences in the courts have led me to believe that false allegations are on occasions made, in particular by children, sometimes without any appreciation that, for example, a conversation with a schoolfriend about a disliked step-parent may so easily lead to a trial at the Old Bailey and that, once made, an allegation which may be either exaggerated or plain false can trigger a process which is then virtually unstoppable. To find the courage or the means to retract such a falsehood is usually impossible for an adult, let alone a child. No changes must be made which prevent the truth emerging in such cases. The aim of what the Home Office decides to do must be, as I am sure it will be, to try to ensure that justice is done, not only by seeing that those who have committed crime are tried and convicted but also that those who are falsely accused are not.
  In the moments that I have available to me I shall concentrate on victims of sexual offences. I think it is right to remind the House that those victims include men and boys, as well as women and girls. This is not a battle of the sexes. These offences strike at all parts of our community and all age groups. The question that the Home Office will no doubt consider in looking at this report is how we can make it easier for those people to come forward and give their evidence.
  If one speaks to someone who has been attacked and has not reported it and asks them why they have not reported it, in my experience the answers almost invariably fall into one of the following categories. The first is delay. They do not want the matter, and in particular a court case, hanging over them for months on end. They want to get the matter out of the way and put it behind them. Secondly, they are afraid of having to see the defendant and possibly confront him in court. Thirdly, they are embarrassed to speak out in front of a lot of other people in public, particularly about intimate matters. Fourthly, they are frightened of being unable to stand up to the barristers and feel that they will do badly in cross-examination. Lastly, they often do not think that they will be believed.
  Of all the recommendations in the report, one which has not yet been mentioned I commend in particular to your Lordships when you come to consider it. Recommendation 55 states that:
  "In the case of victims of rape or serious sexual offences, pre and post-trial support should be provided by an agency other than the police, such as Victim Support".
  100
  What a vulnerable or intimidated witness needs in these cases is a friend outside the family, not part of the investigating process or the investigating authorities, with no agenda save to ensure that the witness understands the options and procedures and can talk freely and in confidence to someone who can act as an intermediary with the police and the court, if necessary. As is so often the case today, a police officer trying to fulfil that role sometimes has a primary purpose of ensuring that the case proceeds to conviction. In a sex case, particularly where a child is involved, pressure and intimidation, one way or the other, too often comes from within the family, particularly when a family member is being accused. Vulnerable witnesses need, above all, a supporter to be available for them before and after the trial and during the evidence, if they so wish.
  The witness should have the choice of giving evidence live in open court; in court behind a screen, hidden from the defendant; or on closed circuit television. Anything which helps to make a witness feel more at ease is likely to assist the truth to emerge, whatever the truth is. But the choice that the witness makes should be an informed one, and the witness should know that the impact on a jury of evidence given on a television screen is much reduced. I have no doubt that closed circuit television is an advantage to the defence when it is used.
  In appropriate cases it must be right that cross-examination on video well before the trial should be possible. But the defence and the Crown must retain the ability to ask further questions by video link, at trial if necessary. Those of us who practise know very well that all the prosecution witness statements, the defendant's full instructions and the statements of all the defence witnesses are sometimes not available until very shortly before the trial and may require further questions to be asked of a witness if justice is to be done.
  If those changes alone were made, they would in many cases go a long way to addressing delay and to the question of facing the defendant in person and speaking out in public. I am not entirely happy with the suggestion that no defendant in a sexual case should ever be permitted to cross-examine the complainant. My reasons differ perhaps from those of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, though I agree with the points he made. Few defendants are foolish enough to do so because cross-examination in those circumstances is specialist and requires specific skills and experience.
  As we have been told, the judge has the power to intervene and stop abusive, insulting or intimidating cross-examination. Perhaps in an appropriate case, where the specific conduct of a witness, the type of offence—I think particularly of stalking offences and matters of that kind—or the relationship or conduct of the accused, make it in the interests of justice for a defendant to be protected and indeed prohibited from cross-examining the judge should be able to require that he be represented for that purpose. However, I have known a victim in a rape trial who was anxious—no, determined—to confront her attacker in person, and a devastating witness she was. Hard rules can lead to injustice.

  101
  Similarly, if cross-examination by a barrister is insulting, bullying, aggressive or too long, judges can and in my experience certainly do intervene to stop it. Contrary to what has been said, in the 28 years or so that I have been in criminal practice, it has not been my experience that unnecessary or irrelevant cross-examination about previous sexual history is allowed. Indeed, judges today take the greatest care to ensure that the reasons, the nature and the extent of the cross-examination are explained before they will allow any questions of that nature to be asked. I question therefore the need for change in that respect. It is necessary in each case for the specific facts which led to the request for those questions to be asked to be explored by the court.
  Of course, it is right that no witness, even one who is telling lies, should be bullied, and judges can and do prevent that happening. No judge who is robust is likely to be criticised. Sexual allegations can be made with relative ease. They can be difficult to disprove because so often only two people are present and there is no independent evidence. The truth can only emerge if the evidence can be fairly given and fairly tested. Witnesses certainly need more help than they receive at present; but those who are falsely accused do not need less.
  8.23 p.m.
  Lord Lowry: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I intervene briefly in this discussion. I will confine myself to the proposal to prohibit a defendant appearing in person from cross-examining the complainant.
  I sat as a trial judge and in the Court of Appeal in a jurisdiction where rape was regarded as an extremely serious offence. I share the view that before severe punishment can be meted out, the case must be proved. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, rightly reminded your Lordships not to be afraid of innovation. As a profession, we are rather conservative and sometimes that has stood in the way of desirable reform.
  On balance, I am against the proposal to prohibit a defendant from cross-examining in person. I say "on balance" because I appreciate that a number of good points have been made in favour of such a prohibition. However, in my opinion it would be a mistaken response to the deplorable proceedings two years ago about which everybody in the House knows.
  It is recognised that the principle of a fair trial demands that the defence shall be able to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, in order to prevent the defendant from cross-examining the complainant, it is proposed to take away from him the right to conduct his own defence and give him only one way of being defended; that is, by an advocate. But a defendant may be strongly committed to defending himself. He may be a talented debater and possibly a successful criminal advocate. Or, in a date-rape case—most of the cases of controversial cross-examination will be of that type—the defendant may feel that he knows exactly what did and did not happen and may wish to rely on that first-hand knowledge combined with his forensic talents—real or imaginary.
  102
  I realise that such cases will be few. But that is not a good reason for taking away the right to defend oneself personally. The answer to the problem is that the trial judge should control any excesses, whether of the defendant or of his advocate. That has been sufficiently explained this evening. It is vitally important that, in a case tried by a jury and particularly in a criminal case, the judge should not give the appearance of being hostile to one party; in the sort of case we are discussing, that means hostility towards the accused. It is part of the expertise of a good judge to be able to control the proceedings without giving that appearance. My noble and learned friend Lord Ackner and the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, explained how control is kept and how that can be done without open hostility towards the defendant.
  My second point is that I am not at all satisfied by the argument that Article 6 of the Convention on Human Rights is not infringed provided a defendant can either defend himself or be represented. I am aware of the case in Germany decided by the Court of Human Rights. It is not a time to go into detail; it is not a precedent which I admire in the context of the jurisdictions in these islands.
  If Parliament introduces the proposed restriction, it will be saying, "You will no longer have a choice of ways of being defended. You must accept counsel, even if you conduct your own case." That statement would reduce the defendant's "minimum rights" in Article 6, paragraph 3. Even if we are not offending against the Convention, why introduce a unique restriction in one type of case just because some trials—and in particular, one trial—are not sufficiently controlled by the trial judge? Seminars with advice as to how to conduct a trial are at least as important as seminars on sentencing, and the problem can be easily taken care of.
  8.29 p.m.
  Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will wish to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, on introducing a highly valuable discussion. The views expressed indicate what a very difficult subject we are embarked upon.
  The noble Baroness rightly pointed out that the reason for the fall in convictions in this country over the past few years has been due, first, to a lowering of the numbers of prosecutions for rape by strangers—it is very fortunate that the statistics are for once moving in the right direction—and also to the widening of rape prosecutions to marital rape and rape in equivalent relationships. I would add another significant factor for the fall in rape convictions. That is the very considerable increase in sentencing that has happened during the course of my own professional career.
  Rape is a terrible trauma and it is rightly punished by a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. I am sure all your Lordships would agree that a woman has an absolute right to say no. That is her right. No one would for a moment impugn that right. However, the law is that the defendant is convicted on his own state of mind and not upon the state of mind of someone else. It is his realisation of the lack of consent and his recklessness

  103
  which is punished. It is not the fact that the victim—the complainant, as the noble Lord would have it—has said no without communicating that fact to the person who is the defendant.
  I make no apology for saying that there is a trauma for a man who is convicted on a false complaint and who finds himself imprisoned for, today, a minimum of five years, with the destruction of his career and his family life. That has to be put into the balance. I do think that from time to time those who call for greater penalties and more restrictions and for a fence to be put around judicial discretion sometimes forget that.
  I believe that the increase in the length of sentences has caused complainants to withdraw their complaints in cases where they know the person against whom the complaint has been made. If they do not do that, and if they are called as witnesses, in my experience—I speak as someone who has prosecuted, defended and acted as a judge in rape cases—they will be reluctant to press home the point. There is most certainly a reluctance on the part of the jury where the mistaken belief of the defendant is the issue that is before them. They may find it not at all difficult to decide that the complainant did not consent. It is a far more difficult thing to determine that the man who had a relationship with a woman over a period of years did not realise that her consent had been withdrawn and that he believed, despite her protestations, that this was perhaps just a brief problem within their relationship. It is at that point—I think of a recent case in which I was involved—that juries will acquit.
  The issue is therefore one of intimidation. How are women intimidated from bringing complaints? It is that which the report of the working group addresses. There are a number of ways in which a complainant can be intimidated. The first is by external threats. Perhaps the most important of all recommendations made in the report is recommendation number one whereby special measures would be in place to protect witnesses from external intimidation. But there is also of course—and your Lordships have addressed this—intimidation in the court itself. A case hit the headlines some time ago in which the defendant in person cross-examined the victim. I give the strongest support to the guidelines set out in the case of Brown by the Lord Chief Justice.
  When there is political pressure to restrict the independence and the discretion of the trial judge, there lies danger. On the other hand, I follow the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, in what she said. She would give a right to the judge in a proper case, where it is clear that the defendant is acting abusively when he is representing himself and that in putting forward his case he has purposes other than defending himself, to order that he cease to defend himself and that a lawyer be appointed to put his case for him. That is not a halfway house. To my mind, that seems the sensible policy to follow rather than to say that no one should defend himself in the kind of situation to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, referred, where perhaps the word from the husband to his wife might persuade her to reconsider a false complaint that she has laid. I see
  104
  no breach in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights by the appointment of a lawyer in circumstances such as those I have suggested.
  Intimidation may occur not simply through threats, either externally or within the court, but also through publicity. There is anonymity for a rape victim, but that anonymity may be breached merely by the publication of the defendant's name. Never mind about the position of the defendant, but it may actually cause publicity for the victim if the defendant's name is published. I would certainly maintain anonymity for the victim, but I would return to the position that pertained some years ago that a defendant should also be anonymous until conviction; not simply for his own protection, although that is an important feature, but also to ensure that a victim cannot be identified through a round-about route.
  There is intimidation to a complainant by the way in which medical examinations have been carried out in the past. We need in this country to develop projects along the lines of the Northumbrian Reach Project, which ensures that there are specialist centres removed from police stations where fully trained medical staff can carry out the very delicate examinations that are necessary. There should be attached to those centres non-police counsellors. I go along with the views of other noble Lords who have suggested that Victim Support and other such organisations should play an important part in preventing intimidation through the examination of witnesses, medically and in court.
  There can be intimidation by insensitive police treatment. It is essential that those who are involved in taking complaints—the police themselves—should be trained. That training should include investigation of why a complaint has been withdrawn by the victim. Is it because of intimidation or because the complaint was originally false? The matter should not simply stop at the point when the complainant says, "I do not want this matter to proceed". It should be investigated.
  As regards appearance in court, which can be intimidating, closed circuit television technology has been used effectively in children's cases and ought to be extended to cases of rape. The screens are a less satisfactory way of dealing with the matter. In my experience screens create a very false situation within a court. The use of television is a far more acceptable way of dealing with things.
  Finally, I turn to the point forcefully made by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. Delay can very often be the real problem. A person who has suffered and has all the problems to carry finds that it takes months and perhaps a year or more for her case to come to court. In that time the agonies of waiting must be very considerable. The report of the working group is an important step forward. I am sure that there is further research and further investigation to be done.
  8.41 p.m.
  Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend for giving the House the opportunity to debate this matter for it means that tonight the Minister has the opportunity to tell the House how the Government intend to respond to the

  105
  recommendations in the report, whether they will be implemented and, if so, when. My noble friend spoke with great sensitivity about the human issues involved. Time has certainly been limited tonight despite the extension we have been given, so I shall focus only on cross-examination issues in cases of rape and indecent assault.
  The working group considered that the trauma caused to a complainant being cross-examined in a rape case arose from two factors: first, that the defendant was asking the questions; secondly, the manner and nature of the questioning, whether it was by the defendant or by a barrister. Recommendation 58 states that there should be a mandatory prohibition on unrepresented defendants personally cross-examining the complainant in cases of rape and serious sexual assault. I note that the report does not say that legislation is required to implement this. I wonder whether that is correct and whether it is simply a misprint within the report. I would be most grateful if the Minister could resolve that point. The report makes clear that after each recommendation the notation of the letter "L" is put where statutory changes are intended whereas there is no "L" at the end of that recommendation. I was concerned on that point.
  I realise that the report was written before the judgment was given in the case of Milton Brown on 6th May of this year. I have read that judgment in full. The Lord Chief Justice provided new guidelines for judges—that they should take a more interventionist approach and either halt questioning if it seeks to humiliate, or order the installation of a screen, in addition to controlling cross-examination. How confident is the Minister that the new guidelines do enough to protect the victims of rape and indecent assault in the interim? I can only assume that the Government believe that the Lord Chief Justice's words are inadequate because the Home Secretary's announcement about legislation came after that judgment was issued.
  The report agrees with the argument which I put during the course of the Crime and Disorder Bill that Section 34A of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, as amended by the Criminal Justice Act 1991, already provides an exception to the right of a defendant to cross-examine personally in child cases. The working group confirms that it is not aware of problems with that at present and that there is no ECHR case against it.
  I am most grateful to Justice for allowing me to refer to a legal opinion on the matter, which was obtained by it on 11th June from Peter Duffy QC. He concludes that the proposals in the report,
  "are plainly compatible with the Convention and further that retention of the existing right of rape defendants to cross-examine their alleged victims in person would be open to grave criticism for failure to have proper regard to the Convention rights of victims".
  Mr. Duffy provides a careful review of the existing cases and he states that,
  "enactment of the proposals would manifestly be in compliance with respect for the Convention rights of all concerned".
  Could the Minister confirm that the Government agree with that view?
  106
  The working group tackled the issue which I had not attempted to deal with within the context of the Bill: who, if anybody, should represent the defendant if he or she refuses representation? Recommendation 60 states that where an unrepresented defendant is prohibited from personal cross-examination, he or she should be granted legal aid, without means testing, to obtain legal representation for cross-examination purposes only. If the defendant refuses legal representation, then the court should have the discretion to assess whether it is necessary in the interests of justice for the defendant's case to be put and, if so, have the power to appoint a person to undertake this task.
  The working group recognised that in view of a barrister's professional duty to put the case on behalf of his client, there may be difficulties for counsel in conducting cross-examination only. The report maintains that,
  "information about the general line of defence should be available from the defence statement which is required to be produced in indictable cases under the provisions of section 5 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996".
  But Section 5 statements can be very brief; for example, "Every time she says I did it, she's a liar". The defence could have changed since the making of the Section 5 statement and it is possible that there is no Section 5 statement at all.
  If a defendant only refuses representation for cross-examination the barrister would at least have had a consultation before the trial about all the particulars of the alleged offence. But what happens when the defendant refuses representation altogether? The barrister will have no information except that contained in the Section 5 statement. How do the Government plan to resolve that particular dilemma?
  The working group goes on to recommend that in cases of rape and other serious sexual offences the law should be amended to set out clearly when evidence on a complainant's previous sexual history may be admitted in evidence. Several noble Lords have already made very effective reference to that procedure.
  In evidence to the working group the Rape Crisis Centres quote a statement from the Northumberland police that the prospect of facing aggressive, humiliating and irrelevant questioning in court was the largest single factor in making women withdraw their complaint. If this is so, then reforming the cross-examination of rape victims in a way that retains the fairness of the trial for both the defendant and the alleged victim could provide a potent improvement in the way in which rape victims are treated in the criminal justice system.
  The report pointed out that current practice might be improved upon by further guidance being issued to courts, but concluded that,
  "given the experience of the last 20 years in operating section 2 [of the 1976 Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act] the Working Group was not convinced that this option would provide an effective solution".
  Do the Government agree with that assessment?
  All of us throughout this country have a role to play in ensuring that the criminal justice system works as fairly and effectively as possible to protect all the

  107
  individuals involved—victim or innocent defendant. I believe tonight all noble Lords who have spoken have tried to play their part as best we can to raise the issues fairly. I look forward to the Minister's response.
  8.48 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office, (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, this has been a genuinely interesting debate because no one tried to make any partisan points. The range of views that have been expressed indicate the very delicate nature of the matters we are concerned with and the fact that it is very difficult to have a solution which will deal with every possible scenario.
  I think that the report is a masterly document in many ways and I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, for her graceful commendation of it. However, it casts its net very wide. It deals with vulnerable or intimidated witnesses of all sorts, and it is not of course limited to trials of rape or indecent assault, although I understand entirely that because our time is limited a number of your Lordships have focused on those matters.
  Some of the observations made are general and I am bound to say that I agree with the overwhelming majority of them. I can say specifically that the eagle eye of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St. Johns, has correctly detected an omission by way of a misprint on Recommendation No. 58. The Government's view, which I have expressed publicly in the past, is that there is nothing in Article 6 which would forbid a court in appropriate circumstances to limit cross-examination by a defendant in person. I do not myself believe that the present statutory provision for the protection of child witnesses is in breach of our convention obligations.
  The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, asked particularly about consultation with the judiciary. There were four members of the judiciary, all of whom were nominated by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, who attended special conferences held by the working group, so that the views of the judiciary were undoubtedly taken into account. I will refer to that point again in a moment, if I may.
  It seems to us that it is a basic test of a decent society that everyone should have fair treatment from the criminal justice system. That includes victims, alleged victims, witnesses—who need not always be victims but may be grossly traumatised in a way that we who have not been witnesses may find difficult to understand—and of course defendants. So there is that balance to be maintained. If I may say so respectfully, I think that the Lord Chief Justice in his recent pronouncements was very alert to the balance that has to be kept. I hope I may say without presumption that it is very important that someone in his high office does issue reflective views which have to be put into effect across the wide parameters of the criminal justice system.
  This group was set up very soon after the last election by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State Mr. Jack Straw. I think it has done a very considerable public service and has produced a very considerable
  108
  piece of work. Of the 78 recommendations, 26, on my tally, will need legislation. Some of the recommendations are not entirely for the Government and it is quite right that they should not be. Some of them will depend on local agencies, local priorities and local responses to particular conditions. That is only right. I do not believe that there is a raft of 78 recommendations which necessarily ought to be at the diktat of central government.
  We have said that we give a broad welcome to these proposals, and that remains our view. This was quite an important working group with representations from all interested government departments. The CPS was represented, together with ACPO, the Local Government Association and Victim Support. As one can see from a reading of the report, it tried to look at all stages of the criminal justice system, from investigation through to trial. That is extremely important, because so often in the past one has had a snapshot view of perhaps a trial, perhaps a cross-examination within a trial, rather than bearing in mind—here I agree entirely with what noble Lords have said—that one needs to look at the alleged victim's interests at the early stages from the time of the alleged offence.
  I also pay tribute to the careful piece of work submitted by the Criminal Bar Association, which rightly recognised that the protections for witnesses, defendants and victims or alleged victims need to be very carefully balanced indeed. If I cast my net a little wider than simply rape and sexual assault, intimidation of witnesses generally and of alleged victims is a growing concern. There have been quite a lot of notorious cases recently where people have been acquitted on directed acquittals in very serious cases indeed, including murder, because the only evidence available comes from a witness who has been so intimidated that he or she would rather suffer what is of course likely to be a fairly moderate term of imprisonment—because that has been the history of it—rather than give evidence and thereafter live in fear.
  The report makes useful points about individuals and communities which may live in fear, terrorised by criminals who are vicious and organised. There is a range of useful practical measures which ought, I think, to form part of a wider debate which we cannot have this evening because of the constraints of time. One needs to remember that witnesses may be vulnerable for all sorts of different reasons. They may just be afraid of speaking in public; they are certainly troubled by the uncertainty of trial dates; they are deeply concerned about delays; and it seems to us that it is a matter of proper management that those who deal with the investigation, prosecution and listing of cases ought to bear in mind that every single participant needs so far as possible to have a degree of certainty about what the nature of the process is and what the timetable is likely to be, with the increasing use of effective pre-trial hearings, when something useful and definitive could be achieved.
  The good practice video which has been mentioned by two of your Lordships was, if I may say so, a very good piece of work which was produced by the NSPCC. I need not declare my interest, because my noble friend

  109
  Lord Borrie has done that. It was an excellent piece of work, the best I had seen at that stage, because it demonstrated how courts actually work. Certainly I can say from my own conversations that the Bar Council are well aware of its value and have undertaken to give serious consideration as to whether it ought to be a professional obligation on any member of the Bar—I think myself that it ought to be considered by the Law Society also—to have at least studied the video and possibly to have had some training in this very difficult field. After all, the CPS instructs advocates properly trained to prosecute. Should that not be a sanction on those who wish to defend in these cases? It is very important, as has been said, that the Judicial Studies Board should be fully supported in the training which is given—this point was made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lowry—about the conduct of trials. It has always struck me particularly—I know this is in the mind of the Home Secretary—that to try a case under the Children Act, a judge has to be nominated, designated and trained, and that does not always obtain, unfortunately, in the allocation of work in these sensitive areas of sexual assault. That is really a question of simple training and management of the judiciary and it does not seem to me that it requires legislation. What it requires is clear signalling and a clear acceptance of the message transmitted.
  My noble friend Lord Borrie referred to the work being done at Penge. That is an admirable house, which I went to quite a while ago now with Sir Stephen Brown, the President of the Family Division, who has subsequently given every support to the causes which my noble friend Lord Borrie identified. It is very important that children should know what is going to happen to them. If a child is a complainant and is told that his case may come on in nine months' time, nine months is a lifetime to a child, as well as to your
  110
  Lordships and to me. It is quite wrong, I think, if there is a machinery for allowing video evidence to be put into evidence, that a firm, final and definitive conclusion is not arrived at in the overwhelming majority of cases and stuck to, so that a child is not anxiously asking its parents, its helpers or friends on a Friday, "Am I going to give evidence on Monday?" and the answer is, "I am not quite certain yet".
  These are monstrous abuses imposed by a system which is intended to remedy abuse. What my noble friend Lord Borrie has said about delay is absolutely accepted by the Home Secretary and by everyone in the Home Office who has put his mind to this. We can use CCTV in the way that has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, that some immediacy may be lost. That is something that has to be put in the balance.
  This work has pressed on well. It has taken a year or so and I think that it has been time well spent because it will be the bible and the testament for a good deal of further reform. We do not want time to be wasted. We have therefore said that we shall consult until 31st August on the detail of all the proposals. I can assure your Lordships that every single view put forward tonight will be carefully pondered and taken into account before we come to a final decision.
  As I said earlier, 26 of the recommendations require legislation and legislative time. I gather from the temper of your Lordships' House this evening that, if legislative time is required, we shall have co-operative responses from every part of the House. The other recommendations require reflection, imagination, patience and the devotion of resource but, most of all, the devotion of time, thought and energy to the purposes which I believe we all share.
  House adjourned at nine o'clock.

  Fine Enforcement
  Fine Enforcement
  International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
  International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
  Association of Chief Police Officers
  Association of Chief Police Officers
  Anglo-American Drug Alert Collaboration: EpiPen
  Anglo-American Drug Alert Collaboration: EpiPen
  NHS Night Time Care
  NHS Night Time Care
  Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988: Retirement Benefits Schemes
  Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988: Retirement Benefits Schemes
  Working Families Tax Credit
  Working Families Tax Credit
  Tourism Promotion Costs: National Comparisons
  Tourism Promotion Costs: National Comparisons
  Radio Authority and Independent National Radio Companies
  Radio Authority and Independent National Radio Companies
  Fast Track Civil Litigation: Consultation
  Fast Track Civil Litigation: Consultation
  Northern Ireland Civil Service: Early Retirement Schemes
  Northern Ireland Civil Service: Early Retirement Schemes
  Houses in Multiple Occupation
  Houses in Multiple Occupation
  Belfast's Airports: Standards
  Belfast's Airports: Standards
  Catamaran Ferries
  Catamaran Ferries
  Heathrow: Landing Delays
  Heathrow: Landing Delays
  News International and UK Independent National Radio Companies
  News International and UK Independent National Radio Companies