Sitting of 16 March 1998

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

    Rex Cinema, Berkhamsted
    Mr. Page: If he will visit the Rex cinema in Berkhamsted. [32897]
    The Minister for Film and Tourism (Mr. Tom Clarke): I have no plans to visit the Rex cinema. If it were currently showing a good British film, I might be tempted—but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the Rex has been closed for years.
    Mr. Page: I am disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman will not visit the Rex cinema. As he has rightly said, it has been closed for some years. It is in a dilapidated state; £2 million is needed to glue it together. Berkhamsted is an attractive town and the Rex cinema, in the middle of it, is an eyesore.
    As I said, £2 million is needed to repair the cinema. If it is used for cultural purposes, it will require £100,000 to £200,000 a year in subsidies. Will the Minister either provide the £2 million that is needed to bring the cinema back to its former glory and the £100,000 to £200,000 a year to maintain it or allow the frieze around the screen and the plaster shells on the side—which, as the Minister will know from his 1930s days are the sort of features that have given the Rex its listing—to be stored elsewhere? Better still, will the Minister take steps to remove the listing, allow the site to be developed for sheltered housing and take the pressure off the green belt, which is so badly needed in Hertfordshire?
    Mr. Clarke: I have no intention of intervening. It is true that my Department has received letters, but only two have been opposed to the listing. One such letter was from the hon. Gentleman on 19 May 1997, in which he enclosed a letter from the developers. However, the local authority, the Friends of the Rex, the Ancient Monuments Society and the Cinema Theatre Association all support the listing. The hon. Gentleman will know that there is a presumption in favour of the preservation of listed buildings. We support that view.

    World Cup
    Mr. Tony Clarke: What plans he has to co-operate with his French counterparts in respect of the 1998 World cup finals. [32898]
    The Minister for Sport (Mr. Tony Banks): The Government are co-operating fully with the French authorities on the World cup finals this year. The Home Office, the Foreign Office and the British police are in close contact with their French counterparts over the arrangements for the safety and security of English and Scottish fans. I recently met the French Minister for Sport, Mrs. Buffet, at the winter Olympics in Nagano—I am a terrible name dropper—when we discussed ticketing arrangements.
    Mr. Clarke: I thank my hon. Friend for that response. Does he share my despair and dismay at the inadequate ticket allocations from the French, which mean that genuine supporters will not be able to obtain tickets when they travel with genuine travel clubs, whereas black market profiteers and ticket touts in France will be able to peddle tickets in unsegregated parts of grounds to all and sundry?
    Will my hon. Friend join me in urging those supporters from the home countries not to travel if they do not have tickets? Any disturbance, no matter what the cause, can only reflect badly on our bid to stage the 2006 World cup.
    Mr. Banks: Yes, I share my hon. Friend's concern. Clearly there is much dissatisfaction with the distribution of tickets in England and Scotland and in many of the other participating countries. Just for the record, for the first match—England playing Tunisia in Marseille—we have 3,790 tickets. We have 2,749 tickets for the match against Romania and 2,589 for the match against Colombia. As England has 32,000 registered travelling supporters, it is clear that that ticket allocation is inadequate.
    The extra 160,000 tickets that have been offered by FIFA are for all the countries involved. That allocation will mean only a few hundred more tickets for England and Scotland. However many tickets were put on the market, there would not be enough to go round. That being so, the message remains the same: "If you don't have a ticket for the World cup finals, please don't travel." I record yet again that there is much dissatisfaction with the allocation of tickets. When England gets the 2006 World cup finals, that shortcoming will most certainly not be repeated.
    Mr. Maude: But what does the Minister aim to do about the problem? It is all very well saying that the situation is unsatisfactory, but it seems to be continuing. If there is a problem with the behaviour of disappointed supporters in this summer, it will affect our bid to host the 2006 World cup. I understand the Minister's excitement at Dr. Havelange's pledge of support last week, but he is surely aware that similar undertakings have been given to heads of state in Germany and South Africa.
    Mr. Banks: This is essentially a matter for FIFA, the French authorities and the English Football Association. The Government have given their full political backing to the FA's efforts to secure more tickets for our fans. In the end, of course, we cannot force either FIFA or the French to release more tickets, but we can certainly learn from this experience to ensure that it is not repeated.
    Mr. Maude: So much for leading in Europe.
    Mr. Banks: The right hon. Gentleman must realise that I would very much like to wish up more tickets, but unfortunately I cannot do so. Those fans without tickets should not travel. We do not want any difficulties in France. I remind all English travelling fans that they are ambassadors for the country in terms of the bid for 2006.
    On the right hon. Gentleman's point about Dr. Havelange, of course I am not so naive as to assume that Dr. Havelange, who is a wily old politician, does not say things to please his hosts whichever country he happens to be in, but I would rather he said that England had a good case and that he supported us than that it was a rubbish case and that he did not want to see the World cup held here.
    Ms Ward: What action has my hon. Friend taken in his discussions with the French authorities to ensure that we do not have a repeat performance of the policing and lack of control that we witnessed in Italy? Can he assure us that he has made his views clear to the French authorities so that fans travelling abroad are afforded the necessary protection?
    Mr. Banks: More to the point, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made his views quite clear, and a couple of weeks ago in Blackburn there was a constructive seminar on hooliganism, where the views of the British police, the French police authorities and the police authorities of participating countries were all heard, and hooliganism was discussed and debated. As long as our fans behave themselves, there will be no difficulties. We will always seek to protect our supporters travelling abroad, because they do not leave their civil rights in this country when they go, but they must behave and remember that they are ambassadors for the country. The French police do not muck around. They have very strict rules with regard to ticket touting. No one should think they are a pushover, because they are not. Again, the message is: "Don't risk it. If you haven't got a ticket, don't travel."

    National Lottery
    Mr. Yeo: What representations he has received on the appointment of a not-for-profit operator for the national lottery. [32899]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): Nearly half the 71 responses to our White Paper commenting on our proposals on operation favoured a not-for-profit operator. We remain committed
    934
    to the objective of not-for-profit operation, and the existing legislation allows that to happen.
    Mr. Yeo: Regardless of the operator, why are the Government taking powers, through the National Lottery Bill, to use lottery money to pay for schemes that previously were funded out of general taxation? In particular, why will not he accept Opposition amendments that would at least limit the lottery money that he can divert from the good causes that ticket buyers want to support into projects that have been hand-picked by new Labour Ministers?
    Mr. Smith: The overwhelming content of the responses to our consultation on the White Paper showed that our proposals were favoured by the general public. If the hon. Gentleman does not believe that lottery funds should be devoted to improving out-of-school-hours provision; to ensuring that we can provide decent child care in this country; to ensuring that we have healthy living centres in high streets and on estates throughout the country; and to ensuring that our teachers and librarians are competent to teach information technology to pupils and to people throughout their lives, I am afraid that he has a poor idea of the nature of our society.
    Dr. Iddon: Does the Secretary of State believe that GTech is a fit and proper organisation to be involved in the running of the national lottery?
    Mr. Smith: The director general of the Office of the National Lottery has summoned GTech to provide information, and he is considering the matter in great detail and with great care.
    Mr. Maude: Given that Camelot is under investigation on this issue, does the Secretary of State regard it as satisfactory that it has been encouraged to become a sponsor of the millennium dome? It has agreed to sell tickets for the dome without recompense, and pressure is reportedly being put on its management for the company to become a full cash sponsor of the dome. To allay fears about a cash-for-licence-renewal deal, will the Secretary of State confirm that no further sponsorship will be accepted from Camelot?
    Mr. Smith: That question astonishes me. The agreement is for Camelot to make provision through the lottery terminals for the sale of tickets for the millennium experience. It was sensible and worthwhile to secure such an agreement. There is no question whatever of any lessening of the proper scrutiny that the director general exercises over Camelot's running of the lottery. The forthcoming decision on the franchise in 2001 will not be affected by any such agreement.

    Tourism and Leisure Industries
    Mr. Cohen: What estimate he has made of the benefit to the tourism and leisure industries of promotions targeted at gay people. [32900]
    Mr. Tom Clarke: I am monitoring the impact of the recent British Tourist Authority-London Tourist Board campaign to attract gay visitors to Britain.
    Mr. Cohen: Is there a new attitude in Government circles towards gay and lesbian visitors to these shores, which respects the legitimacy and importance of such tourism? The United Kingdom caters for a diversity of interests and life styles. Will the Minister confirm that the pink pound is welcome here? London is an attractive place to visit. A gay and lesbian film festival is currently being held, but there are excellent clubs and places to visit all year round. Will the Minister disregard past prejudicial reviews and back the London Tourist Board's campaign to reach gay people?
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend's points are, as always, well made and well taken, and I am glad that he has drawn the matter to the House's attention. The role of the London Tourist Board is to optimise tourism revenue in the medium and long term for the benefit of London's economy. In fulfilling that role, it is entirely appropriate for the board to target all aspects of the market.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Will the right hon. Gentleman try to be true to the spirit of his Department's original title of Department of National Heritage? I hope that the tourism and leisure industries are full of gay people. If the hon. Gentleman is referring to homosexual people, he should say so.
    Mr. Clarke: With respect, the right hon. Lady spent a long time at the Department and has learnt nothing and forgotten nothing. People who work in tourism understand the importance of the role that they play: it is important for the economy, the environment and our social fabric. I do not think that many people will have much regard for the right hon. Lady's view.

    Seaside Towns
    Mr. Bradshaw: What plans he has to support the efforts of seaside towns to promote tourism. [32901]
    Mr. Barry Jones: What plans he has to support the efforts of seaside towns to promote tourism. [32905]
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Seaside towns are important for the domestic tourism market. The Government's strategy for tourism will benefit all areas, including seaside towns. One of the forum working groups on tourism is helping us to develop the strategy, and is considering these issues in particular.
    Mr. Bradshaw: The Minister will be aware of the great importance of tourism to the south-west's economy, which has lately been taking a few knocks. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will do what he can to ensure that a representative of the tourist industry is appointed to the board of the south-west regional development agency? That would do a great deal to further the cause of tourism in the region.
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend always makes his point eloquently, and I was very happy recently to visit the south-west. As he said, resorts are key regional assets on which regional development agencies and local authorities can build. Moreover, they contain theatres, museums and other cultural attractions that attract lottery funding. I welcome my hon. Friend's point.
    Mr. Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are countless high-quality seaside resorts in Wales—for example, Llandudno and Rhyl? Does he accept that the prosperity of those towns would be greater if the marine environment—the Irish sea—were better? How can Ministers help? Can they provide any financial help to give those towns a better chance?
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend always does a splendid job in addressing problems in a constituency that straddles an area covered by the Welsh and the English tourist boards. I assure him that his comments are very constructive. Seaside resorts can benefit from various grant schemes—including sector challenge, local challenge, the national lottery, the single regeneration budget and the European regional development fund—which I hope will be used fully by resorts, including those where my hon. Friend has an influence.
    Mr. Fraser: How many jobs does the right hon. Gentleman estimate will be lost in the tourism industry as a result of the minimum wage?
    Mr. Clarke: In common with the overwhelming majority of people in the tourism industry, I think that people who are properly paid, properly motivated and properly trained will contribute to the creation of new jobs. The independent commission—to which the Labour party was pledged, and in which the industry was represented—has made its findings, which we shall soon publish. I am delighted that employers and employees in tourism take a much more enlightened than the hon. Gentleman—thank heavens for that!
    Mr. Hancock: I hoped that the Minister would say that tourism funds would in future be directed through regional development agencies. If that is the case—I hope that it is—will he deal with the problem of the changing roles of tourist boards? I know that, last week, the Minister was a guest of the Southern tourist board. I believe that that board has long passed its sell-by date—it needs to change from being predominantly a members' club into being a proactive promoter of tourism. How does he see the future of tourist boards in relation to regional development agencies?
    Mr. Clarke: I was pleased, only last week, to be in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, where I saw good examples of best practice. He has raised two points. First, the introduction of regional development agencies will add a more regional focus to development, and that should benefit tourism. Moreover, the English Tourist Board and regional tourist boards have reacted quickly and positively to the Government's RDA proposals, which we are looking forward to implementing in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. Secondly, the forum established by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—which is dealing with the matter

    937
    of new blood, new input and new ideas in tourism—will soon be making its findings. My right hon. Friend hopes to be able to publish his reaction to those findings in September. I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that there is great excitement about new ideas in tourism, which is a very positive industry. Those are the views of my right hon. Friend and the Government.

    Media (Editorial Independence)
    Mr. Corbett: What proposals he has to safeguard and extend editorial independence in the media. [32902]
    Mr. Chris Smith: Responsibility for what is broadcast on the audiovisual media is for the broadcasters and broadcasting regulators, which are independent of Government and accountable for safeguarding the public interest in broadcasting.
    Editorial independence of the press is a matter between proprietors and editors. Any direct interference by Government in their relationship would, of course, be inappropriate in a democracy.
    Mr. Corbett: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that interference by newspaper owners and book publishers makes a mockery of editorial independence? Does he accept that what may please people in Beijing is likely to displease the rest of us? Will my right hon. Friend ask the Press Complaints Commission to look into recent cases of interference in editorial independence which threaten press freedom, with a view to encouraging newspaper owners to sign up to a code of conduct in respect of that important aspect of the business?
    Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is right to make a robust defence of strong editorial independence. I suspect that his question may have touched on The Times newspaper. He will be aware that, when the previous Government took decisions in relation to the ownership of The Times, one clear provision was as follows:
    "the editor of each newspaper shall retain control over any political comment published in his newspaper and, in particular, shall not be subject to any restraint or inhibition in expressing opinion or in reporting news that might directly or indirectly conflict with the opinions or interests of any of the newspaper proprietors."—[Official Report, 27 January 1981; Vol. 997, c. 790.]
    That provision remains firmly in place and if my hon. Friend has any evidence that it has been breached, he should draw it to the attention of the independent directors of Times Newspapers, who were appointed for precisely that purpose.
    Mr. Hawkins: In the light of the assurance that was given to the previous Government, and bearing in mind what happened recently at HarperCollins, does the Secretary of State accept that it is his job, on behalf of the current Government, to investigate whether that assurance has been adhered to?
    Mr. Smith: It is in fact the job of the independent directors of The Times to do precisely that. It is the purpose for which they were appointed. There are five of them and I suspect that the hon. Gentleman knows more about them than I do.
    Mr. Winnick: Should not my right hon. Friend be willing to learn certain lessons from what happened in respect of Mr. Patten's book as a result of the direct intervention of Mr. Murdoch? Is he altogether satisfied that the selling of The Times at a totally non-commercial price on certain days of the week is not undermining other newspapers not controlled by press tycoons?
    Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend will be aware that matters relating to loss-leading sales of any item are matters of competition policy that are being addressed by the Competition Bill that is currently before another place. In relation to the discussion concerning HarperCollins and the book by the former Governor of Hong Kong, the net result of the entire exercise will probably enlarge Macmillan's publishing profits.

    World Cup
    Mr. Randall: What representations he has received concerning the allocation of tickets for the forthcoming World cup in France. [32904]
    Mr. Banks: I have received a considerable number of representations about the ticket allocation for England and Scotland supporters for this summer's World cup finals. The method of allocation is a matter for FIFA and the French organisers, not for the Government, although we have been lending our support to the Football Association's endeavours to get additional tickets.
    As I said in reply to an earlier question, our advice to supporters is that if they do not have a match ticket they should not travel to France. I hope that Opposition Members will realise that Ministers are setting a good example by staying at home and I hope that everyone will follow that example. I also said that French laws against ticket touting are very tough.
    Mr. Randall: I thank the Minister for his reply and his earlier answer about allocation in 2006, when there will be a Conservative Government. To return to 1998, however, are the Government preparing any specific measures to prevent black market tickets falling into the hands of people with convictions for football offences?
    Mr. Banks: I have heard about fantasy football. We now have fantasy politics. I should like to see the hon. Gentleman's team.
    Everyone is worried about black market tickets. The problem has arisen partly because French supporters have put in for tickets not knowing where their team will be playing. The organisation of the ticket sales means that a large number of French supporters are likely to be in possession of tickets for matches such as England v Romania, which they will not want. They will probably try to sell such tickets. We are still finding out whether it is possible to recycle them so that they can come back on to the market and be sold to supporters of other countries who desperately want to get hold of tickets.
    I hope that the hon. Gentleman has noticed that, since my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary reminded the courts of the powers available under various legislation to place restriction orders on those so-called fans who have been convicted of football-related offences, there has been a significant increase in the number of such orders.

    939
    That is the way to proceed. We shall ask our fans to behave responsibly. I look optimistically—perhaps naively, but I hope not—to our fans to behave themselves when they travel. As ever, the message remains, "If you don't have a ticket, please don't travel."
    Mr. Corbyn: Will my hon. Friend consider the allocation of tickets for other games, not involving England or Scotland, to supporters of countries such as Jamaica? Tour operators are charging huge prices to take people to northern France and back for one match. Will my hon. Friend look into the excessive profits being made by people who have managed to corner a few tickets?
    Mr. Banks: There are no tickets yet—they have not been printed. Many of the advertisements that my hon. Friend has read are based on optimistic assessments by unofficial tour operators and others of the number of tickets they will be able to get. My understanding is that French supporters are still in possession of vouchers only, not tickets. The official tour operators have similar vouchers. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to a scandalous situation. Decent football supporters, seeing advertisements in the newspapers, have a right to feel angry and distressed at the way in which tickets—or the promise of them—are getting on to the market. All sorts of security and financial problems will arise. It is bad enough trying to deal with ticket allocations for England and Scotland. To try to deal with the problem for Jamaica as well would stretch even my ingenuity to breaking point. I take my hon. Friend's point. We shall do all that we can to ensure that decent, ordinary fans get tickets at proper prices.

    Digital TV
    Mr. Miller: What plans he has to encourage the take up of digital TV. [32906]
    Mr. Chris Smith: On 12 February, I published a consultation paper "Television: The Digital Future", in which we ask a range of questions relating to accelerating the take-up of digital services and seek views from broadcasters, receiver manufacturers, retailers, consumer organisations and the public.
    Mr. Miller: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the difficulties faced by people in certain parts of the country who cannot get a decent analogue signal because of line of sight difficulties with transmitters. He will also be aware of the campaign conducted by my hon. Friends the Members for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) and for Wirral, West (Mr. Hesford) and me about the west coast of the Wirral peninsula. Will he ensure that the providers of the new digital services take into account the needs of people in such areas during the roll-out of digital television?
    Mr. Smith: I understand the issue to which my hon. Friend refers. Several areas of the country do not receive good analogue signals because of particular difficulties. At its launch, digital television should reach 90 per cent. of the country, with about 81 transmission stations. I shall certainly bring my hon. Friend's point to the attention of the broadcasters. As digital rolls out, we want to ensure that it does even better than analogue transmission.
    Mr. Evans: In his enthusiasm to ensure that people have several hundred more channels from which to choose, will the Secretary of State consider using the carrot more than the stick in the take-up of digital television? I am thinking of people on fixed incomes, such as pensioners, and perhaps even those who do not want to take up the offer of several hundred more channels. They should not be forced by the switch-off of analogue to take up digital television too soon; they should be able to carry on receiving only five channels—although some think that even that number is far too many. They should not be forced to spend money that they have not got to ensure reception of the current five channels.
    Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman is clearly misinformed on one point. The hundreds of channels will be available on digital satellite and not digital terrestrial. Some 20 or 25 channels will be available on digital terrestrial. On the hon. Gentleman's substantive point, it is important that we ensure that people who at the moment receive analogue and who wish to carry on doing so for some considerable time will be able to do so, and that no one will be forced unnecessarily to purchase a digital set.

    Commercial Television
    Mr. Mullin: What plans he has to maintain programme quality in commercial television; and if he will make a statement. [32908]
    Mr. Chris Smith: The terrestrially transmitted commercial channels are subject to a number of programme requirements which are monitored and enforced by the Independent Television Commission. The commission must also seek to ensure that commercial television, taken as a whole, offers programmes of high quality and wide range, appealing to various tastes and interests.
    Mr. Mullin: Why is Sky Television exempt from the requirement on ITV and BBC to produce a percentage of output in this country?
    Mr. Smith: Sky, like all broadcasters under European provisions, has to move towards a quota of European-made programming. I have to say that Sky is making good progress in moving towards that quota. I was particularly pleased that it recently announced that it would make a substantial investment in UK film production over the coming year.

    National Lottery (West Midlands)
    Mr. Cranston: If he will make a statement on the Millennium Commission's spending on projects in the west midlands region. [32909]
    Mr. Chris Smith: The Millennium Commission has, to date, awarded more than £80.6 million to eight projects at more than 1,000 sites in the west midlands economic planning region, ranging from an offer of up to £50 million in grant to the Millennium Point learning centre in Digbeth, Birmingham, to a number of grants of less than £10,000 to community halls and Church-based projects around the region.
    Mr. Cranston: My right hon. Friend will be aware that one of the projects funded is the black country urban forest, although he may not be aware that the commission is also funding the planting of trees in the Dibdale area of my constituency, which is a new, vibrant and growing community. Does he agree that the latter is precisely the sort of project that should be funded, benefiting not only local people now, but future generations?
    Mr. Smith: I am pleased to agree with my hon. Friend. The project is, indeed, very worth while and one of quite a number of tree-planting projects that the Millennium Commission has funded. It will help to reverse the devastation of the natural woodland of the region since the industrial revolution. More than 100,000 people are expected to participate actively in the scheme over five years, and more than 1.1 million people living in the catchment area will benefit. That is a very good example of the many projects that the Millennium Commission is funding. I sometimes wish that our friends in the national newspapers would learn that the Millennium Commission is about a lot more than just the excellent millennium experience in Greenwich.

    National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts
    Dr. Gibson: How he will determine the balance between the arts and science in the apportioning of funds via NESTA. [32910]
    Mr. Chris Smith: The National Lottery Bill, which is currently before Parliament, sets out NESTA's objects in the fields of science, technology and the arts. The balance of funding between NESTA's activities will be for the chair and trustees of NESTA to determine, in line with statutory objects.
    Dr. Gibson: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the debate in the heady 1960s between two cultures—arts and sciences—which was fronted by C. P. Snow and F. R. Leavis, and fomented through the common rooms and high tables of Oxford and Cambridge. We have moved on, and this is science, engineering and technology `98 week. Many young people will show their scientific and literary skills in the 5,000 projects that are to be demonstrated across the country. Does my right hon. Friend agree that literate scientists and arts graduates should be equally represented on the board of trustees?
    Mr. Smith: I have consulted more than 250 bodies, including many in the scientific and technological fields, to identify candidates for the posts of chair and trustees of NESTA. We shall ensure that all disciplines are adequately and properly represented on the board. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his recent election as chairman of the all-party parliamentary office of science and technology group. I am pleased that we have progressed from the two cultures days of C. P. Snow and F. R. Leavis. NESTA will be charged to help to break down the artificial barriers between the arts and sciences, which have bedevilled this country for far too long.

  MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (MILLENNIUM EXPERIENCE)
  The Minister was asked—
  MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (MILLENNIUM EXPERIENCE)

    Millennium Dome (Contents)
    Mr. Robathan: What representations he has received about the contents of the millennium dome. [32926]
    Mr. Clappison: What representations he has received about the proposed content of the millennium dome. [32929]
    The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Peter Mandelson): I have received a huge quantity of correspondence on all aspects of the millennium experience. I am particularly pleased about the many letters of support that I have received following the hugely successful presentation of contents launched by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 24 February.
    Mr. Robathan: I understand that the millennium experience is to feature an androgynous figure with a baby at its feet, which is an unlikely, if happy, event. I have been abroad, but I understand that there has been much newspaper speculation about whether the baby is to wear nappies. Is not the Minister concerned, as I am, that the event is becoming an object of ridicule in the press, and that, far from setting up a great exhibition such as the one in 1851, his lasting legacy to the millennium will be known as Mandelson's baby?
    Mr. Mandelson: If I were the hon. Gentleman, I should be slightly more concerned that I had no more intelligent question to ask. As for the conception of the millennium experience, he has only to look to the brilliant vision shown by his party when in government to recall that it was the Conservative party's idea in the first place.
    Mr. Clappison: Has the Minister given thought to seeking the views of our splendid Lord Chancellor on what to put inside the dome? Better still, has he thought about an exchange of jobs with the Lord Chancellor, who is, as he tells us, in charge of everything in this Government? Would not the Lord Chancellor relish the opportunity to fill the dome with the best of British art and workmanship so as to create a fitting monument to himself, in the style of Wolsey with Hampton Court and Christchurch? Would not it be better for the contents to be the best of British, and to have Lord Irvine and rule Britannia, rather than the tacky cool Britannia contents that seem to have been chosen?
    Mr. Mandelson: The contents of the millennium dome will be the best of British and demonstrate considerable pride in our past as well as enormous confidence in our future. It is extraordinary to listen to Conservative Members, who seem to begrudge the progress that we are making; our success is a source of disappointment to them. That is extraordinary, given the importance of this great national event.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: I hope that my hon. Friend will not be too dismayed if I ask a serious question. Many of us

    943
    are disturbed to hear that large numbers of the general public do not associate the millennium with the birth of Christ. Would not it be appalling if such an important link were not central to the exhibition, because giving the general public the idea that it was not directly connected with a core reason for its existence would set a dangerous precedent?
    Mr. Mandelson: I share my hon. Friend's sentiments. The millennium marks a hugely significant moment in the Christian calendar. It is a time for Christian celebration and reflection, and this must and will be reflected in the spirit zone and many other aspects of the millennium celebrations. We must remember that the millennium is a movement for the whole nation. It will bring Christians together, but not just Christians—people of all faiths and none will be involved. In that spirit, it will receive considerable support from the whole country. In that context, I would like to pay tribute to the Churches for generating a proper focus on the significance for them of the millennium experience and its associated activities.
    Mr. Pike: May I assure my hon. Friend that although there were many concerns about the festival of Britain and the contents of the dome of discovery, people such as myself enjoyed their visits to the festival in 1951? Is it not likely that people who go to the millennium celebration will enjoy what they see and will remember that occasion for the rest of their lives?
    Mr. Mandelson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A recent Gallup poll in The Daily Telegraph showed that, even without the dome having been built and without the contents having been installed, some 35 per cent. of the population approved of what they had heard so far. Some 60 per cent. showed tremendous confidence that we would get it right on the night. That is a typically British attitude, and people's confidence will be well merited in the final result.
    Mr. Baker: Will the atmosphere zone—where we are expected to experience the wonders of our planet—feature the air conditioning system chosen for the millennium dome, which will be powered by a greenhouse gas 1,000 times more effective than carbon dioxide? Why has not a greener gas been used, as recommended by the Deputy Prime Minister and Greenpeace, among others? When will the Minister reply to my written parliamentary question, tabled on 10 February, about this matter?
    Mr. Mandelson: The hon. Gentleman will not have to wait much longer for his answer. I recognise, as does the New Millennium Experience Company, the need for environmental protection and integrity in the dome's construction and operation. We acted on that basis in switching from PVC to Teflon for the dome's roofing fabric. The company is doing so again by rejecting CFCs and HCFCs in the chiller system of the dome, and by keeping environmentally harmful HFC emissions down to 1 per cent. That is well within the letter and spirit of the declaration of intent agreed with the refrigeration industry in 1996.
    Ms Abbott: Now that there is more clarity about the contents of the dome, when does my hon. Friend intend
    944
    to make public the business plan for the dome, in line with the recommendation by the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport?
    Mr. Mandelson: The company will make its business plan public when it said it would in presenting evidence to the Select Committee. It will not be before too long.
    Mr. Maude: What responsibility does the hon. Gentleman take for the fact that the Gallup poll to which he referred showed that nearly one in three people thought that the dome was a complete shambles, that nine out of 10 felt uninvolved and excluded and that, so far, only one in five planned to attend—less than half the proportion who planned at an equivalent stage to visit the 1951 festival, which baulks so large in the Minister's mind? Is it not a shocking indictment of his management of the project that three out of four people in that survey believed that this great national project was a complete waste of money? If he can bring his attention back to his own responsibilities for a second, will he acknowledge that he is now the major part of the problem?
    Mr. Mandelson: No, I will not. The right hon. Gentleman refers to a similar poll being undertaken at a similar time prior to the 1951 exhibition. That is not the case. The opinion poll was taken at the back end of 1950, so we still have a long way to go before the right hon. Gentleman's equivalence is discovered in any opinion poll. I am sorry if he thinks that the public have been excluded. Perhaps if the Conservative Government had done more to consult them when they hatched the idea, there would be no sense of exclusion.
    As for the so-called shambles to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, all that I can do is to point again to the opinion poll's important finding that 60 per cent. of the population have every confidence that we, at least, shall get it right on the night. I am very sorry that he cannot find it in himself to express a little more confidence or to display a slightly less curmudgeonly attitude than we have seen recently.
    Mr. Skinner: Will my hon. Friend not make too many comparisons with 1951, when a totally different culture was abroad? Very few people had a chance to travel; they regarded visiting the festival on the bus from Derbyshire as a day out and, if they had a few bob, they would go in their posh frocks. This time, there will not be bus loads of people going down in the middle of the summer. When my hon. Friend opens the millennium experience, there may be 3 deg of frost or 3 ft of snow. He should understand that he has a problem in convincing the same groups that there is something to be more excited about than a boot sale or walking round DFS.
    Mr. Mandelson: I thank my hon. Friend for what I think was a helpful question. In the years before the millennium dome opens, many activities will take place under the umbrella of the national programme that is associated with the millennium experience—it will be called the millennium challenge. The activities—sporting, educational, environmental and cultural heritage—will take place in all parts of the United Kingdom, and will involve people from all backgrounds and of all ages. As people learn more about the contents of the dome and associate themselves more with the national programme,

    945
    the anticipation and excitement will grow and grow. Our problem will not be attracting people, but finding enough space and opportunity for them all to enter the dome to have the time of their lives.

  The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—
  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Social Renewal
    Mr. Jenkins: What steps the Church urban fund has taken to promote social renewal in poorer areas of the United Kingdom. [32935]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): Although this is not strictly a matter for the Church Commissioners, I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that the Church urban fund celebrates its 10th anniversary in April. It was set up in 1988 in response to "Faith in the City", a Church of England report which drew attention to the increasing levels of poverty in urban areas.
    Mr. Jenkins: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and also pass on the thanks of many of my constituents who use St. Martin's community centre in Stoneydelph, which has benefited from urban fund finance. Will he also consider finding funds for Glascote Heath, which is in another part of my constituency, where levels of deprivation are as high as in any major city?
    Mr. Bell: I am grateful, as will be the Church Commissioners and the Church urban fund, for my hon. Friend's kind remarks. The St. Martin's community centre is in an area with a high proportion of young and one-parent families, as well as above-average unemployment; the Church urban fund is doing its best for those people. On the wider question of areas to be targeted, the fund targets resources to the poorest areas of England's inner cities and outer estates by awarding grants to local community-based projects. I am sure that if the project to which my hon. Friend refers is eligible, it will be considered by the fund.
    Mr. Rowe: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this anniversary constitutes an opportunity to sing the praises of the Church of England, which has not only channelled money into some of the most deprived parts of our cities, but has provided—over many centuries, but especially recently—professional people who do not live in the leafy suburbs and commute into the inner cities, but actually live in the inner cities, and share the difficulties and privations of those among whom they live?
    Mr. Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to the fact that the fund arose out of "Faith in the City", which was a significant report with considerable consequences. The initial campaign launched as a result of it raised more than £20 million, primarily from the Church community, but with additional support from the corporate sector.
    946
    The investment and on-going contributions enabled the fund to award more than £3.5 million in grants each year. That is a practical demonstration that the Church as a whole is concerned for, and stands with, the most disadvantaged in our society.

    Ashford Great Park
    Mr. Baker: To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what changes to procedure are being introduced following reports into the Ashford Great Park development project. [32936]
    Mr. Stuart Bell: The commissioners' corporate governance has been reviewed and strengthened and an audit committee has been established. The board of governors has developed rules under which the assets committee is obliged to keep it regularly informed of decisions and actions. A property group of the assets committee scrutinises individual holdings and advises on strategic issues; and independent valuers were appointed.
    Mr. Baker: I am pleased to hear that answer, as far as it goes; but will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, as a consequence of this fiasco, the Church Commissioners have lost an absolute fortune, not least because they acted as guarantors for unsecured loans of £87 million, against agricultural land valued at £3 million? Does not that represent excessive incompetence, and can he guarantee that such a fiasco can never again occur?
    Mr. Bell: I am always grateful for helpful questions. If I may echo my hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio, that seems to be a helpful question. It is 10 years since the Ashford project, and the commissioners have learnt from their experience. An independent report, published in 1997, concluded that the increased expertise available to the commissioners, combined with the improved internal control systems and administration, has been a contributory factor in our markedly improved investment results.
    I can only echo the words of the Archbishop of Canterbury; on 29 July 1997, he said:
    "I am satisfied that the right lessons have been learned. We should now draw a line under it. I have full confidence in the strengthened and renewed management of the Commissioners' assets".

    Church Buildings (VAT)
    Mr. Burns: What representations the Church Commissioners have made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the level of VAT on repairs to churches and church buildings. [32937]
    Mr. Stuart Bell: The Church Commissioners have contributed to submissions to the Government's charity taxation review made by the Churches Main Committee, which represents 36 denominations and the Jewish faith. Among our major concerns are the facts that the Church of England will eventually lose £17 million a year as a result of advance corporation tax changes; that Church schools are disadvantaged in relation to local education authority schools because, unlike them, they are liable for

    947
    VAT on any repairs; and that the Church of England pays more in VAT than it receives in grants from English Heritage.
    Mr. Burns: I am grateful for that reply. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is general bafflement among members of the clergy and churchgoers in West Chelmsford about the fact that, if a new church were to be built there, it would have zero-rating for VAT, while buildings that are important as part of our national heritage, such as Chelmsford cathedral, incur 17.5 per cent. VAT on any repairs? Will he continue to press the Chancellor vigorously, to try to end this nonsense, which penalises our national heritage in favour of new buildings?
    Mr. Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I am aware that the Chelmsford diocese has taken a strong interest in the matter. The General Synod voted recently to support a call for a reduction to 5 per cent. VAT on repairs. The Church Commissioners have contributed to the debate and sent a booklet, and I have written personally to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I know that others in the Church will make their own representations. Everything that can be done is being done. This is not special pleading on behalf of the Church, but a response to the request for submissions to the Government's review of charity taxation.
    Mr. Pike: Is it not a fact that many church congregations could move to modern buildings, which would be appropriate for their worship and much cheaper to run? However, as they are in historic buildings that are an important part of our heritage and which we have to preserve, there should be a special response to ensure that the buildings, which are of national and local importance, can be retained.
    Mr. Bell: Yes, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. The buildings are of national importance
    948
    and part of our national heritage. Within the Church, it is thought rather odd that alterations to listed church buildings are zero-rated for value added tax and yet repairs are rated at 17.5 per cent. That is an anomaly which we hope—it may be a pious hope at this stage—will be rectified tomorrow in the Budget.

    Investments
    Mr. Flynn: What proposals he has to enlarge the ethical content of the commissioners' investments. [32895]
    Mr. Stuart Bell: Implementation of the commissioners' investment policy excludes about 10 per cent. of the United Kingdom stock market.
    Mr. Flynn: Can my hon. Friend explain why the Church Commissioners decided to take their money out of MAI when it merged with United Newspapers, on the curious pretext that it did not invest in national newspapers because of potential political bias, but retained investments in Shell, Nestle and RTZ in spite of their questionable record on human rights and pollution?
    Mr. Bell: My hon. Friend is right. The Church Commissioners do not invest in newspapers, as they do not want to be identified with any political viewpoint or to be associated with unacceptable news-reporting standards. Therefore, investment in newspapers and the companies that publish them is normally avoided. On the overall investment policy of the commissioners, they do not invest in companies whose management practices are judged unacceptable. In addition, we avoid investing in any company if the major part of its business activity or focus is gambling or the production of armaments, tobacco products or alcoholic beverages. So, we have a clear investment policy that applies to all the companies in which we invest.

BBC (Scratchcards)
3.31 pm
Mr. Gerald Kaufman(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement about the responsibilities of the BBC under its charter in relation to its decision to promote the sale of Camelot scratchcards on BBC 1 next week.
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): Under the terms of the royal charter and agreement, the BBC may not without the prior approval of the Secretary of State receive payment for broadcasting sponsored programmes and advertising or promotional material. The BBC has set out in detail its approach in that area in its producers' guidelines, which all BBC programme makers are required to observe. The guidelines contain specific provisions on the coverage of national lottery games and draws. The BBC has stated that the new national lottery programme will comply fully with the terms of the producers' guidelines. In particular, the new programme will avoid any direct promotion or product placement. I will personally expect the chairman and the governors of the BBC to examine carefully the provisions of their charter and agreement, which they are there to uphold, to ensure that the plans for that programme do not in any way breach those provisions.
Mr. Kaufman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the BBC guidelines state:
"A competition must not risk being interpreted as gambling or a lottery. The Lotteries and Amusements Act 1967 may be contravened if a viewer competition is based on a game of chance and some sort of donation, purchase or contribution is made to enter"?
People will be required to pay £2 for the tickets, which are advertised as "TV DREAMS" and "TV HOME PLAY". Therefore, does my right hon. Friend agree that the rule will be violated? Does he further agree that another rule, that
"BBC programmes should normally pay for the prizes they offer"
and that prizes should be original rather than expensive, will also be violated? Is he aware that the prizes are being paid for not by the BBC, but by Camelot and that one rises as high as £100,000, with others of £10,000?
Is my right hon. Friend further aware that the rules say that the BBC
"must never convey the impression that it is promoting any service, product or publication"?
Yet the BBC is promoting the sale of scratchcards, because without their sale by Camelot, the game could not be played on television. Is it not deplorable that if a commercial television company were doing that, it would be violating the Independent Television Commission's rules and could be fined by the ITC, while an organisation created, financed and given a charter by the House is violating in the clearest possible way the guidelines that it accepted and is in serious danger of violating section 10 of the charter and the licence that goes with it? Will he make it clear to the BBC that its contravention of the terms of its charter—of its very basis for existence—is not tolerable to the House or the Government?
Mr. Smith: I can certainly tell my right hon. Friend that any contravention of the terms of the BBC's charter
950
and the terms laid down by the House is to be thoroughly deplored. However, the BBC asserts that the programme to which he refers does not contravene the terms of its charter. It is that precise question which I expect the governors of the BBC to address. Under its governing instruments, the royal charter and agreement, the BBC is, rightly, independent in all matters relating to the editorial content and scheduling of programmes. I cannot directly intervene in such matters; that is the job of the chairman and governors.
My right hon. Friend made three points. First, on the game of chance rule, the BBC states that the programme to which he referred will not involve any violation of that rule. Secondly, paying for the prizes offered is a matter connected with the national lottery. At the moment, the BBC does not pay for the prize offered on the Saturday night draw. Thirdly, on the promotion of the sale of scratchcards, there is a specific provision that the new programme will avoid any direct promotion or product placement. The producers' guidelines state:
"BBC programmes should not actively promote the purchase of Lottery tickets or Lottery scratchcards…there should be no on-air credits for 'Camelot'".
They also say that the BBC must retain editorial control. The BBC states that all those provisions are being upheld.
Mr. Francis Maude: The Secretary of State will recall that I alerted him by questions to our concerns on the issue some weeks ago. Perhaps he can answer some more specific questions. When was this game approved by the Office of the National Lottery? Was it clear at that time that the BBC would be so integrally involved in its promotion and administration? Following the question of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), does not the BBC's eleventh-hour decision to remove its name from the promotional material show how far beyond the limits of the charter the programme is? The Secretary of State's reply to the right hon. Gentleman sounded as if he was exonerating the BBC from any allegation of breach of the charter, yet the right hon. Gentleman advanced a powerful case that the charter's terms have been breached. What is the process for investigating that? Who is the arbiter of whether the charter is being adhered to?
Is not the reality that the BBC now wants to have it both ways? It wants the luxury of being funded non-commercially by what amounts to a poll tax on the viewers, it wants the privilege of self-regulation and it revels in promoting itself as a high-minded public service broadcaster; but at the same time it seeks the latitude to operate as a red-blooded commercial beast, fighting furious ratings wars with the comfort of a guaranteed income, against commercial broadcasters for which audience ratings are the very life-blood. One needs only to recall the name Lord Reith to illustrate how far the BBC has wandered in this sort of exercise from its original remit. Does not this latest episode highlight the fundamental ambiguity within the BBC? Is the Secretary of State now prepared to use the issue to bring it to a head?
Mr. Smith: The date on which this particular scratchcard game was approved by Oflot was 24 July last year. There are two issues, the first of which is the promotion of the scratchcard itself by Camelot. That is a matter properly regulated by the Director General of

951
Oflot. The second issue is the BBC's association with the game in the development of the programme. I do not, as the right hon. Gentleman puts it, exonerate the BBC; I question the BBC closely about how it is fulfilling the terms of its charter. The points that have been made, both by him and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), will be ones to which I shall expect the BBC chairman and governors to provide convincing and compelling answers.
To answer the right hon. Gentleman's question about who is the arbiter of the charter, the upholders of the charter are the chairman and governors of the BBC. As I said earlier, under the charter, the BBC is independent in all matters relating to the editorial content and scheduling of programmes. That is right and proper; it is as it should be. The Government should not be able to interfere in those matters. What the Government and Parliament can do is ensure that the chairman of the governors and the members of the board of governors are properly upholding the provisions of the charter and ask serious and detailed questions about whether they are doing so. Those questions are being asked this afternoon and have already been asked by me. We shall make sure that the answers are given in full and properly.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a sad state affairs for Labour Members in particular, who have defended the rights of the BBC and who have sung about its splendours all over the world, to see that, in its search for the lowest common denominator, the BBC has got in bed with Camelot again? If my right hon. Friend can make inquiries, I should like to know what is the strange relationship between somebody at the BBC and Camelot. The BBC pays out large sums of money to read out the lottery numbers and now it is taking part in this sort of caper. It is time that proper inquiries were made.
Mr. Smith: The rights of the BBC as a public service broadcaster are still to be defended and the BBC is to be applauded around the world, because the overall content of its programming is of high quality and I wish it to continue to be so. As for the particular programme, the Saturday night lottery draw is watched by an average of 11 million every week. The BBC has entered into a proper and open commercial relationship with Camelot in order to broadcast that programme.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Does the Secretary of State accept that when the right hon. Member for
952
Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and both main Opposition parties all express concern, the matter is one of real concern to all hon. Members? Is it not true that what obviously started as Camelot's dream is now turning into the BBC's nightmare? Does the Secretary of State accept that asking questions this afternoon, as he has just told us he is doing, is clearly not enough? The BBC has already infringed the rules to which the right hon. Member for Gorton referred: the point of sale material carries the BBC's mark and it is in the shops. The BBC is already endorsing the product in contravention of the royal charter.
Can the Secretary of State tell us at what stage he was alerted to the problem, given that, as he just told us, Oflot approved the scheme as long ago as July 1997, and no doubt negotiations have taken place with the BBC ever since? At what stage did the Department for Culture, Media and Sport become aware that there was a problem with the integrity of the BBC?
Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point in drawing attention to the fact that many hon. Members from all parts of the House have expressed concern. This is a matter also on which, as a Department, we expect the BBC to account for itself. The BBC must not infringe its guidelines; that is clear. The BBC claims that it is not infringing its guidelines. We shall wish to see, as Parliament will wish to see, a proper account of whether it has.
Mr. Chris Mullin: May I put it to the Secretary of State that, in an age when we are at risk of being engulfed by a tidal wave of junk culture, we look to the BBC to lead the resistance, not to lead the plunge downhill? Will he make it clear in words of one syllable to those in authority at the BBC where their responsibilities lie?
Mr. Smith: Yes. I have made it very clear throughout the past 10 months, at every meeting that I have had with the governors of the BBC, the chairman of the board of governors, or the managers of the BBC, that its prime duty is as the mainstream public service broadcaster in this country, and that their duty, as governors, as the chairman or as managers, is to uphold the provisions of the charter and agreement.
Mr. Kaufman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg leave to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

HMP Maze
3.46 pm
Mr. Ken Maginnis(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement in respect of events at the Maze prison which have resulted in the death of Mr. David Keyes, a prisoner on remand.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): I should like to say at the outset how much I and the Secretary of State regret the death of Mr. David Keyes in the Maze prison during the weekend. The Northern Ireland Prison Service owes a duty of care to all prisoners, regardless of what they have done, or may have done, and any death in custody is a matter of deep distress to prison staff and those responsible for the safety and security of prisoners.
The circumstances of this case are now the subject of a murder investigation, so I must choose my words with care.
David Oliver Keyes was found dead in his cell in C wing of H block 6 at approximately 8.30 am on Sunday 15 March 1998, during the routine morning cell check. The body was found hanging with a ligature around the neck and both wrists slashed. He was pronounced dead at 9.5 am. The cause of death seemed to be suicide.
The Royal Ulster Constabulary and the coroner's office were notified, and the prisoners were moved out of C wing. During the course of the day, the police and a pathologist visited the scene. Both took the view that the cause of death might not be suicide. At 17.00 hours, the body was removed for a post mortem, the results of which led the RUC to launch a murder inquiry yesterday evening.
Following his arrest and questioning by the RUC, Mr. Keyes was remanded in custody on 11 March 1998 and was committed to Her Majesty's prison Maghaberry. He asked for, and was given, a form to complete, seeking a transfer to the wings of HMP Maze occupied by the Loyalist Volunteer Force. That form is intended to ensure that the applicant is quite clear in his mind about the faction with which he wishes to be housed, and about the nature of the regime that operates in the Maze. Mr. Keyes signed and dated that form on 11 March.
In accordance with normal practice, the LVF prisoners were asked to confirm that Mr. Keyes was acceptable to them; they said that he was. No information was available to the Northern Ireland Prison Service that suggested that Mr. Keyes was in any way at risk from that faction. Accordingly, he was transferred to the LVF wings of the Maze on 11 March.
The Maze prison contains more than 400 convicted terrorists, and a further 100 or so are remanded in custody in connection with scheduled offences. Some 150 prisoners have been convicted of murder or attempted murder. They are segregated according to faction, and two of the five factions have not declared ceasefires. All the factions have considerable political and paramilitary influence that extends beyond the perimeters of the prisons in which they are held. Any one of those factors would, by itself, constitute a challenge to security and control—combined, they present the Northern Ireland Prison Service with a unique set of circumstances which is not replicated elsewhere.
954
In the past year, a series of incidents have rightly given rise to concern about the effectiveness of the establishment. Each has been the subject of an inquiry, and substantial improvements in security have been made under the guidance of a new management team. The escape by a prisoner and murder of another prisoner in December 1997 are the subject of both police investigations and an inquiry by Martin Narey of Her Majesty's Prison Service. He is independent of the Northern Ireland Prison Service. I have received his report, and it will be made public shortly—although care must be taken to ensure that its publication does not prejudice the on-going RUC investigation or any subsequent judicial process. In addition, the Secretary of State has asked Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons, Sir David Ramsbotham, to conduct a full inspection of the prison. That will begin next Monday, and his report will be published in due course.
In the light of all those investigations, it would not be appropriate for me to say more today about the nature and performance of HMP Maze. I assure right hon. and hon. Members that Ministers will treat the reports' conclusions and recommendations with the utmost seriousness.
Mr. Maginnis: I shall not deal with the Minister's shameful admission at the Dispatch Box this afternoon that prisoners engage in self-regulation from the moment they enter the Maze prison. Society suffers greatly as a result of any murder, but democracy as a whole suffers when a murder is carried out for blatantly political purposes and advantage.
Will the Minister explain how, when a tunnel progressed for many yards in the Maze before it was discovered, a prisoner attending a children's Christmas party escaped, a convicted prisoner was murdered, and now a prisoner in custody has been murdered, society can be expected to have any confidence in the Executive and the Administration in Northern Ireland? If those who are supposed to be in a controlled environment cannot be protected, how can we protect society as a whole?
The core issue for the Minister today is how the Executive and the Administration will respond to the Narey inquiry and Sir David Ramsbotham's inspection. Will a judicial sworn inquiry be launched as a result of this incident? Will the Secretary of State and others make the blatant presumption that no one needs to resign as a result of this outrageous situation? As has occurred in the past, will no one in charge be found to be culpable? The Minister must admit that it is no good his saying that this sort of thing went on before Labour came to power. After 10 months, I must ask: when will the Minister and his colleagues accept responsibility in government?
Finally, is it not a matter of the utmost significance and the greatest concern that the Ministers and civil servants who have made such a diabolical mess of our prisons over the past 10 months are the same Ministers and senior civil servants who have lost the confidence not only of the Prison Service and the governors association in the Prison Service, but of the Police Authority for Northern Ireland, the Police Federation in Northern Ireland, and a vast number of ordinary members of society in Northern Ireland, who see those same people carrying out an exercise in dealing with the RUC that will soon place that police force in the same disorganised position as the Prison Service?

955
Will the Minister get the message, and will he and his colleagues stop distorting and dissembling what is going on in the Prison Service?
Mr. Ingram: I shall start from the end point. The opposite is the case. Since we have taken over the administration, we have tried to be more transparent, open and honest about the realities that we have inherited in Northern Ireland, both in the Prison Service and in wider society. That is why we have what we believe to be a successful peace process in place. We have faced up to realities and stopped using the language of history and the mantras of old. We have tried to look towards the future and the new.
The hon. Gentleman commented on the self-regulation in the prison. That is indeed the case. There is an element of self-regulation. It has been there for a considerable number of years.
As a result of the attempted tunnel escape to which the hon. Gentleman referred, a major investigation was carried out by a senior civil servant. Those recommendations are being implemented. Most of those that would impact greatly on increased security in the prison have been implemented.
On the back of the prisoner escape involving Liam Averill and on the back of the murder of Billy Wright, a further investigation has been carried out. We await the publication of that report. It would be wrong to issue any statements in advance of that, because of what I said about the possible danger of prejudging an existing RUC investigation and any judicial action that may follow from it.
The hon. Gentleman asked when Ministers would accept responsibility. We do accept responsibility. That is why we are seeking to implement the changes that we have undertaken. However, everyone in Northern Ireland, including local politicians, must also accept responsibility.
The consequence of change in the administration of the Maze would clearly have a significant impact among the prisoners, possibly leading to major disorder in the prison, as we have seen time and again in the Maze. Also, because of the large-scale support that those prisoners have out with the prison, in the communities from which they come, there could well be major public disorder in the estates of Northern Ireland. If that is the kind of change that local politicians want, and if those are the consequences that they want for their community, they should say so now.
It is not just a matter of local politicians raising questions; they must also look for answers for their own troubled society. That is what the Government are trying to manage, to the best of our ability. I would have expected and hoped for a little more calmness from the hon. Gentleman in the present situation, because of what could flow from current developments, as happened after the murder of Billy Wright. We can all remember the large number of sectarian murders that flowed from that. Calmness and responsibility are required from all politicians—not just from Ministers, but from local politicians.
Mr. James Cran: The Opposition join everyone in the House and elsewhere in deeply regretting yet another killing in the Maze prison, and send condolences to the family of Mr. David Keyes.
956
This is a crime which should not have been possible. Many questions will be asked, just as they were at the time of the killing of Mr. Billy Wright. Questions can be asked in the House, but they simply cannot be answered. That is why, at the time of the killing of Mr. Billy Wright, the House will recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) called upon the Government to set up a fully independent inquiry, simply because that was the only way in which there could be confidence in the outcome of any inquiry.
It is regrettable that the Government chose to ignore that advice and instead instigated what, in effect, is an internal investigation. That simply will not do now. I repeat the call of my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell yet again for an independent inquiry to be set up speedily. Any other action will not meet the requirement of this serious situation, which must not be repeated.
In anticipation of the reports that the Minister mentioned and has commissioned, can he offer any guarantees that there will not be a repetition of the killing that we are now discussing?
Mr. Ingram: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's early comments in recognising that there are difficulties in answering detailed questions during what is clearly an RUC murder investigation. I appreciate that at least he recognises that such questions could prejudice that investigation.
The hon. Gentleman has repeated once again the request for a full judicial public inquiry. He should know that that process would, of itself, have to be long running. It would have to take full account of any police investigation and any judicial processes that flowed from that. Therefore, it would be some time before any conclusions could possibly be implemented on the back of such an inquiry. The hon. Gentleman has made that call in advance of the publication of the Narey report. I suggest that he await the publication of that report. Let him see how thorough that report has been, as I believe it has. He should then judge the conclusions accordingly as they arise from the report.
The hon. Gentleman asked me whether I could anticipate future events. I cannot do that. No Minister in any Administration has ever been able to give such guarantees. Violence exists within all prisons, or there is the potential for it within all prisons on the mainland and in Northern Ireland. I believe that that is even more so within the regime at the Maze because of the very nature of the prisoners who are in it.
That is why, before a prisoner is transferred to the Maze, he is fully informed of the sort of regime that he is entering. It is on the prisoner's own decision that he enters that regime. That is the reality which has applied for many years. Indeed, it applied under the previous Administration. It is what we have inherited that is under investigation, not what we have created.
Mr. Phil Willis: Liberal Democrats, too, join others in regretting the death of the prisoner concerned and of any prisoner who is housed in Her Majesty's prisons. I acknowledge straight away the difficulties that the Government face in trying to address this issue and bringing it to a suitable conclusion.

957
The Maze is an extraordinary prison, by any standards. The events of the past 12 months have proven it to be one of the most extraordinary prisons in the world. The first duty of a prison is, clearly, to protect society from its inmates. Its second duty is to protect inmates from one another. It is clear that in the Maze we are failing to achieve both those objectives.
We on the Liberal Democrat Benches hope that the Government will launch a fresh and independent inquiry. We support the Conservative approach in that direction. If any individuals are directly or indirectly responsible, we would not expect them to remain in their current jobs. We do not, however, call for resignations at this moment because we feel that that would be inappropriate until a full investigation has taken place.
Does the Minister agree, therefore, that he is responsible for making absolutely sure that prisoners are safe in the Maze? What steps will he take to ensure that a murder or, indeed, a suicide, does not occur in the prison in the near future?
Mr. Ingram: Again, I welcome the acknowledgement that the circumstances that prevail in HMP Maze are unique. The hon. Gentleman is right that the Government and the Prison Service have a duty of care to the prisoners in their charge, and, indeed, to wider society. The Government fully recognise that.
The hon. Gentleman requested a full judicial public inquiry. I explained the difficulties associated with that and the delay that could flow from it, which would not address the specific problems that we face at present. As I said to the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Cran), he should await the outcome of the Narey report. Judge us on it, and if there is dissatisfaction with its recommendations, the demand for a further inquiry could be made at that time.
The Government live up to their responsibility, but the hon. Gentleman's request for guarantees for the future—no murders, no suicides, possibly no escapes—is impossible to grant. I ask him to take on board what I said to the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis). There would be significant consequences if the regime in the Maze was changed. It would mean a more draconian regime. First, could prison officers continue to service such a regime, or would some other force need to be put into the prison if there were major riots? Secondly, how would we deal with the consequences of a reaction in the communities that support those prisoners?
That is what all hon. Members have to face up to when they make their demands. The reality of the regime in the Maze was not faced in the past, in the sense of being honest and open about it. That is what we are addressing.
Mr. John Wilkinson: May I remind the Minister that, not so long ago, the Secretary of State was taking the advice, for what it is worth, of convicted terrorists in the Maze prison? How can it be seen that her action, in giving weight to their counsels and advice, has in any sense improved the regime in that establishment? Is it not true that Her Majesty's
958
Government's prime responsibility is to ensure the total reliability of the prison and custodial system, on which the rule of law so very much depends? Without that rule of law, how can any just, lasting and enduring peace be achieved?
Will the Government now make it their priority to listen to the advice of elected, democratic politicians, like my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), who tabled the private notice question today, rather than give weight to the counsels of terrorists?
Mr. Ingram: Let me explain that the Secretary of State did not enter the Maze to seek the advice of the prisoners. It was a bold step, which was recognised internationally as something which kept the ceasefire of a major loyalist paramilitary group on side. It was brave. It took guts to ensure that the particular group of paramilitaries outside the prison that supports its members inside ceased the sectarian murders that it was carrying out. That is the reality that the hon. Gentleman has to face up to. We listen to advice from local politicians and others.
On the administration of the Maze, we have put in place a detailed investigation by Martin Narey and asked Sir David Ramsbotham to carry out a full inspection of the prison. I think that that is the best quality advice that we can obtain, from people who are expert on and knowledgeable about the administration of prisons.
Mr. Roy Beggs: I, too, express my sympathy to the relatives of the deceased prisoner, David Keyes, as do all my colleagues, but I regret that the Minister is indicating that it is likely that we shall continue to yield to blackmail from those within and without our prisons. Irrespective of where historical responsibility lies for the lack of security and control in our prisons, and especially for the lack of proper management at the Maze, does the Minister accept that the recent murders of prisoners show a total disregard for authority by people in prison?
Will the Minister take steps to end the system of self-regulation by prisoners? The sooner that is done, the better.
Mr. Ingram: Let me make it clear that the Secretary of State and I are not yielding to blackmail from people in the prison or prisoners groups. We are trying to manage a difficult and complex situation. The level of security in the Maze, far from being reduced, has been increased. New security measures, such as cell checks, fabric checks and scrutiny of visitors during visits and of prisons during and after visits, have been put in place since the report on the tunnel escape attempt, the Wright murder and the Averill escape.
The hon. Gentleman asked me to end the self-regulatory regime. If we do so, prison officers will have to go down the wing at night, with prisoners under lock asking for sanitation. We must take into account the threats that that would pose to prison officers. HMP Maze contains ruthless murderers and terrorists who do not value life very highly, and 29 prison officers have lost their lives during the troubles. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that prison officers should again be exposed to such a regime, I shall take his view fully into account in my considerations.

Points of Order
4.13 pm
Mr. Andrew Tyrie: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have just picked up from the Vote Office the code for fiscal responsibility, which contains draft clauses from the Finance Bill. Is it in order for what is, in effect, part of the Budget to be published a day before the Budget? Is it right for this document to be leaked in the newspapers a day early? Today's Financial Times contains a long article about the document. Should not the Chancellor, at the very least, make a statement to the House about why this important part of his Budget has been released a day early?
Mr. Michael Fallon: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. There has been a double discourtesy. First, the document, which is now available in the Vote Office, was yesterday comprehensively leaked by the Treasury to every newspaper and is mentioned in this morning's editions. Secondly, the document forms part of the Budget. The consultation document was issued as part of the pre-Budget report in November. This document is part of tomorrow's Budget, yet it was released with a written answer in the Vote Office at 3.30 pm. Is that in order, Madam Speaker? If not, do you deplore it?
Madam Speaker: This is a most unusual point of order. Hon. Members usually complain that documents are not in the Vote Office. As I have not seen the document, I cannot make a judgment. I shall look at it.
Mr. Ken Maginnis: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The response from
960
the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram), was most unsatisfactory. He seemed tacitly to admit that—
Madam Speaker: Order. I cannot take a further argument on that matter. The hon. Gentleman knows the procedures. If he is making the point that I think he is making, he should put it to me directly.
Mr. Maginnis: I am grateful, Madam Speaker. In view of the Minister's most unsatisfactory answer to my question, I give notice that I intend to seek an Adjournment debate.

BILLS PRESENTED
  FARMING OF ANIMALS FOR FUR (PROHIBITION)
  Mr. Norman Baker, supported by Mr. Chris Mullin, Mr. Bill Etherington, Mrs. Jackie Ballard, Mr. Mike Hancock, Mr. Harry Cohen, Ms Tess Kingham, Mr. Peter Bottomley, Mr. Nigel Jones, Dr. Nick Palmer and Sir Teddy Taylor, presented a Bill to protect the health and welfare of fur-bearing animals by prohibiting the farming of such animals for fur: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 27 March, and to be printed [Bill 146].
  HOUSING SERVICE CHARGES (AMENDMENT)
  Mr. Barry Gardiner, supported by Miss Anne Begg, Mr. David Lepper, Mr. Tony Colman, Mr. Gordon Prentice, Mr. Ivor Caplin, Mr. Andrew Dismore, Ms Karen Buck and Kali Mountford, presented a Bill to provide for the transfer of certain county court cases to a leasehold valuation tribunal: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 20 March, and to be printed [Bill 147].
Orders of the Day

  Teaching and Higher Education Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
  4.14 pm
  The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  In asking the House to give the Bill a Second Reading, I am reminded of a famous "Hancock's Half Hour" episode—which I am sure that you, Madam Speaker, will remember—called "The Test Pilot". As the aeroplane was flying along, there was a knocking on the outside of the fuselage—it was the mechanic, trying to get in. Today—although I thought that I would be playing the role of the test pilot—I find myself in the position of the mechanic, as part of the wing has fallen off, and the fuselage is in considerably bad order. Nevertheless, the Bill is still flying, and it will be our job in Committee to ensure that repairs are done while the Bill is still in the air.
  We have a situation in which those in the upper House with the privilege of being hereditary peers amended the Bill in a deliberately destructive manner. We cannot tolerate the democratic will of the British people being overturned by those who have no mandate and whose only claim to the privileged position of being in the upper House is based on something that their great-grandfathers did to somebody a long time ago.
  Mr. Stephen Dorrell: I am very grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way so early in the debate. Perhaps he will answer a question that is a direct result of his comments? In a Question Time last month, the Prime Minister said,
  "we said specifically…that we would abide by the outcome of the Dearing committee report".—[Official Report, 25 February 1998; Vol. 306, c. 364.]
  Did not the amendments in the other place give effect to the Dearing committee report? Was the other place therefore not supporting democratic will, rather than undermining it?
  Mr. Blunkett: As I shall explain, we took the Dearing recommendations and combined them with our manifesto commitment. We have ameliorated the impact of fees by ensuring that lower-paid people do not have to pay them. Never did we say that we would implement Dearing lock, stock and barrel. Moreover, neither has the right hon. Gentleman made such a commitment—despite the fact that, since 4 November 1997, the premise of his commitment has been that he believes that Dearing should be implemented lock, stock and barrel. On 4 November—in reply to an intervention by the Liberal Democrats' education spokesman, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster)—the right hon. Gentleman said:
  "The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) is wrong to say that I have explicitly endorsed every detail of the Dearing report."—[Official Report, 4 November 1997; Vol. 300, c. 124.]
  962
  The right hon. Gentleman has not made such an endorsement; nor have I or the Prime Minister.
  The Government have welcomed the work done by the Dearing inquiry and its excellent proposals, on which we have built. That is why we ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading. We want to make some progress on the Bill, to make sense of nonsense and to ensure that there is coherence in the policy that is followed—in the interests of tomorrow's young people and mature students, and in the interests of high quality and high standards in our university system.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Does the Secretary of State not concede that many people in the United Kingdom are very unhappy about the introduction of student fees—the effect of which will be compounded by the loss of grant and, therefore, by an increase in repayable loans? Does he agree that that prospect has deterred many students from seeking places in university in the forthcoming academic year? Furthermore, does he agree that, in the long term, the changes will change the face of university education—so that university education will not be universally provided but will be enjoyed only by those whose parents can afford to pay their way through it?
  Mr. Blunkett: My hon. Friend would be correct if there were universal provision and take-up of higher education. He would also be right had there been a substantial fall in applications, but, despite the information that has been put out, sometimes inadvertently and sometimes mischievously, to mislead people into making the wrong assumptions about the Bill, there has been no such drop. There has been reduction in the number of applications of just under 3 per cent.—only 1 per cent. in respect of school and college leavers aged 18 and 19—despite the massive increase of 6 per cent. in the current academic year. In other words, there has been an increase on the 1996 figures.
  We are fighting hard to maintain the resources and the quality of higher education for those who have never had the opportunity to benefit from it. Let us look at the constituencies with the lowest take-up of higher education. The constituencies of Liverpool, Walton and Sheffield, Brightside are fifth from the bottom of the league, with only 3.7 per cent. of the adult population having had the privilege of a university education. West Bromwich, West, as you know very well, Madam Speaker, is next, with 3.4 per cent. Hon. Members representing London constituencies may be familiar with Barking and Dagenham, where the figure is 3.2 per cent., and the make-up of the population there. Bootle also has a figure of 3.2 per cent. The constituency at the bottom of the list is Birmingham, Hodge Hill with a figure of 2.8 per cent.
  The low take-up in the constituencies to which I have referred did not occur because the previous system was so good that it gave working-class children the opportunity to go to university, but for precisely the opposite reason. Under the previous system, two thirds of children from socio-economic groups A and B, but a low proportion of children from socio-economic groups D and E went to university.
  That is why crocodile tears should not be shed for those who have done very well out of the system—more than 50 per cent. of students at Oxford and Cambridge are from

  963
  private schools. Instead, genuine tears should be shed for those who have been neglected over the years—students aged over 19 who have had to contribute to their fees and the one third of part-time students who have to pay their way through university and contribute to the fees.
  If we want a welfare state that helps those who need welfare, we should not turn to those who have higher earnings as a result of a university education, but look after the interests of others who never got there.
  Mr. Tim Boswell: As the Secretary of State will be aware, under the previous Administration I had some responsibility for administering the student support system. Does he concede that in 1995, for the first time, the majority of students were from socio-economic groups C2, D and E and that that was part of a continuing revolution that had democratised the higher education system even before the changes that he is now contemplating?
  Mr. Blunkett: I also recall the hon. Gentleman stating:
  "There is no evidence of widespread student poverty".—[Official Report, 24 January 1995; Vol. 253, c. 166.]
  Therefore, I am interested in what he has to say this afternoon.
  There has been substantial expansion in higher education alongside schizophrenia among the Conservatives, who claimed no credit for that expansion, even during the 1997 general election.
  Mr. Dorrell: Yes we did.
  Mr. Blunkett: In that case, they did not do it very well. If they attempted to claim any credit, they did so with their hands over their mouths, partly because some of their supporters did not like the idea of the expansion of higher education and, I suspect, partly because the quality of higher education had been allowed to deteriorate. A 25 per cent. cut in unit investment in students over the past eight years is not a good record to put to the electorate. The Conservatives claimed to have expanded higher education, but they did so at the price of quality and standards. That is not something to be proud of; nor is the 40 per cent. reduction in grant implemented by the previous regime. This afternoon, the Conservatives have the cheek to say that they now believe in that grant.
  Mr. Robert Jackson: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Blunkett: Well, I will.
  Mr. Jackson: I sometimes think of the right hon. Gentleman as my right hon. Friend, but I do not want to embarrass him. I agree with his intention to shift resources from those who have to those who have not. If that is his aim, why is he putting a cap on the level of the fee?
  Mr. Blunkett: I welcomed the hon. Gentleman's intervention on 23 July, and I welcome his commitment to high-quality universities. We are lifting the cap on numbers. The first tranche will come into effect this year, giving priority to sub-degree level students, because the need for technician skills is uppermost. The Dearing inquiry recommended giving that group the highest
  964
  priority. We shall continue to lift the cap as our comprehensive spending review permits. I hope that we shall be able to say more about that in the summer.
  There is another issue on the cap—the level of the fee. That draws attention to the Conservative amendment. The Conservatives will have considerable difficulty deciding what to do this evening. They purport to support the Bill as amended in the House of Lords. They also have a new-found commitment to not shifting the proportion of the fee that will be required from students. Taking that at face value, and assuming that the Liberal Democrats—who will speak for themselves—agree that 25 per cent. is the correct proportion to require for repayment under a contingent loan scheme, we are left with the question of who is in favour of increasing that figure, because I am not.
  We should examine together how to provide additional safeguards. The Bill suggests that both Houses of Parliament should have to vote on an affirmative order to change the proportion. I suggest that we consider sensible ways of encouraging further safeguards. An inquiry would be cumbersome and unnecessary, but it is worth considering requiring a report from the Education Select Committee before any suggestion is brought before the two Houses and the affirmative orders are moved. That could put a lock on the proportion, giving the safeguards that people are seeking. I should be happy to examine that in Committee on an all-party basis.
  There is general agreement that change to the system of funding higher education is needed. Those who do not agree have to say where the money would come from. They could retrench and cut the number of students who could go to university—which would inevitably result in maintaining access for those who already have it, but failing to break down the barriers and improve access for disadvantaged and unrepresented socio-economic, ethnic and other groups. We have to expand to avoid a situation in which opportunity is taken away from those who have, and those who have not do not gain new opportunities. That is just good common sense.
  The proposals are well thought through, coherent, provide for safeguards, ensure that the cap can be lifted and provide additional resources for part-timers, particularly those who find themselves leaving work and are therefore in financial difficulty. We have promised to ensure, as we do in the Bill, that disabled students are no longer means tested on the specific grants that they receive in order to be able to perform on equal terms. We have given clear indications of our future view on access by doubling the available access hardship funds.
  We are asking the House to provide us with a vehicle that can put that coherent policy into practice and ensure that we carry through our manifesto commitment. That manifesto commitment made explicitly clear what we were going to do. It said:
  "The costs of student maintenance should be repaid by graduates on an income-related basis".
  We have secured a further enhancement of that commitment by linking it directly to the Inland Revenue. Collection will be according to ability to pay, through the Inland Revenue system at a time when people's earnings allow them to make that contribution. That is not a charge on students or on their present circumstances. It is a

  965
  repayment from future earnings, which are enhanced by the very higher education that the extra resources are permitting young people and mature students to take up.
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Hilton Dawson: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Blunkett: Would my hon. Friends like to ask their questions together? I shall give way to my hon. Friend with the higher pitched voice.
  Mrs. Campbell: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. Does he agree that, despite the excellent communication work that he and his Ministers are doing, some students are still under the misapprehension that they will have to find money up front when they begin their university courses? Will he give an assurance loudly and clearly to students who are still writing to me on that subject that that is not so and that they will be given a full loan to cover any additional costs which may accrue?
  Mr. Blunkett: There is confusion, and I am happy to correct it. No family will be expected to find more than they do at the present time. Students are not being asked for more than would be expected under the present system. In fact, we are providing an extra £250 per student a year in hardship contribution—if that is sought by the student—as well as doubling the hardship funds. Resources will be made available at the time students need them. The payments—which I repeat are no greater than the contribution that currently has to be found—will, of course, have to be paid, and will have to be made available by the middle of the second term.
  We know that universities are in a position to collect such fees because they told us so when some of them were pressing for top-up fees to be introduced. We made explicitly clear that top-up fees play no part whatever in our proposals. Despite pressure in the House of Lords, we have resisted our opponents' attempts to ensure both top-up fees and additional contributions to fees. Top-up fees are an alternative to the proposals in the Bill and should be resisted as such.
  Mr. Dawson: I welcome the statement about top-up fees. Does my right hon. Friend accept that some students are worried about universities charging top-up fees by the back door by charging for access to essential software and computers? Does he also accept that, notwithstanding the excellent measures on repayment, mature students and students wishing to undertake postgraduate studies, with the aim of attaining higher qualifications and pursuing academic careers, are worried about the level of debt with which they may be faced?
  Mr. Blunkett: I do not pretend to be able to resolve the problems of those who are committing themselves to postgraduate study. They make a calculation about additional income and additional opportunities: for those with a degree, there is an average £4,000 additional income for every £20,000 earned, and there are greater
  966
  opportunities for those with postgraduate qualifications. A number of ladders are available to those who go into higher education, and graduate and postgraduate students have the opportunity to enhance their chance of getting a quality job that they can enjoy doing.
  I understand what my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) says, and I know that, through his close contact with the university of Lancaster, he is aware of the possibilities and dangers for people who go into higher education. Let me make it clear: I understand why people are anxious, and I have lived the issue for a long time, in opposition and since the general election. I have had the chance to examine the possibilities and alternatives in detail, which few others have had. Having weighed them, I have realised that making available such a substantial amount of money is worth while. It is being raised on a fair basis at a time when people can afford to pay, and under a system that sticks as closely as possible to the income tax principles to which my hon. Friends and I adhere.
  We are trying to achieve that against a backcloth of cuts in grants, cuts in quality investment in higher education and increased demand. We expect even greater pressure as we raise standards in schools, as more students take A-level and GNVQ advanced qualifications, and as aspirations and expectations rise so that the many expect what the few took for granted. To meet it, we must have resources available.
  Ms Diane Abbott: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that some of us have problems with the combination of the tuition fee and withdrawal of the maintenance grant?
  My parents left school at 14. I was fortunate enough to go to one of the old universities on a full tuition fee and a full grant. When I argued with my father that I should be allowed to stay on at school to the sixth form, I well remember him saying that girls my age were out at work. How much worse would it have been if I had faced the prospect of tens of thousands of pounds of debt? [Interruption.] Members on the Treasury Bench jeer, but such levels of debt are a serious disincentive to those from a background where people have not gone on to university. Does my right hon. Friend appreciate, if we can leave partisan politics to one side, that many of us who hauled ourselves up from our background through higher education have serious reservations about the proposals?
  Mr. Blunkett: Oh dear, dear, dear. I must say to my hon. Friend that not one of us on the Treasury Bench did not go through that experience. Each of us knows exactly what the problem is. Perhaps my hon. Friend was not here when I spelt out the constituencies with the lowest number of adult higher education students; if she was, she obviously missed what I said. She claims that a great opportunity was available to the middle class and the better off. They rightly took it, but at university I met people from the same background as me, although no one within a square mile of where I lived went to university. I said that crocodile tears are being shed, and that is what they are.
  We are not penalising students at the point of entry into education; we are asking for a contribution at the point of reward and once they have taken up higher education.

  967
  I do not know how often it is necessary to say that. My hon. Friend would not think it unfair to ask people to pay a higher rate of income tax because they earned more money, and could afford to do so. They earn more money if they are graduates, precisely because of their greater educational opportunities. It is a staggering fact that new graduates, on average—of course, it is only an average—can expect to start at £16,000 a year. That figure went up by 9 per cent. last year. The level of unemployment among graduates is one third of the level among non-graduates.
  There is a mythology that graduates are doing badly. They are doing extremely well. If they are not, they will not pay—it is as simple as that. Our system ensures that the lower your income, the less you pay; the higher your income, the more you pay. An ex-student earning £16,000 to £17,000 a year would pay less than half the amount they would pay under the present mortgage repayment scheme.
  Mr. David Winnick: I understand my right hon. Friend's commitment to higher education and the obvious difficulties that the Government face on economic grounds. He keeps repeating the low number of students from certain constituencies—working-class, in the main—but I cannot see how they will necessarily be helped. Students from higher-income groups will not be deterred. Clearly, people from working-class households who consider going into higher education because of their academic ability may be deterred—although I hope they will not—by the sort of debt which undoubtedly they will face once they graduate. That factor will be very much in my mind when I vote tonight.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. We must have brief interventions.
  Mr. Blunkett: I shall try to be brief in answering them, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am repeating one or two key principles because the message is not necessarily getting through. We have not seen a substantial drop in applications for university places.
  Mr. Dorrell: What about mature students?
  Mr. Blunkett: We will monitor what happens with mature students, and we will ensure that the expansion of hardship funds and other measures protects and helps them. The argument that working-class youngsters will be dissuaded from going to university is clearly flawed. Our system provides a bigger public subsidy to those who take out a bigger loan, because there is a nil real rate of interest. This is the most favourable contingent repayment system imaginable. The bigger the debt—ironically—the bigger the long-term subsidy from the public purse, and rightly so.
  I do not pretend for a moment that our proposals—difficult as they are—can in any way overcome the inequality of income and background which affects this country. Under the present, past and future systems, families with substantial wealth will always look after their offspring in a way that does not leave them with a debt.
  Dr. Lynne Jones: In the poorest communities, only about 2 to 3 per cent. of young
  968
  people go to university, so it is hardly likely that the new system would have any significant impact on the numbers going to university. I share my right hon. Friend's aspiration that more people from poorer backgrounds should go to university. Will he consider these policies to have failed if there is not a substantial increase in the numbers attending university from those socio-economic groups and poorer areas?
  Mr. Blunkett: My clear objective is to expand opportunities for those youngsters, and it is precisely for that reason that we need the resources. Those who are already seeking access—those whose expectation, background or standards would enable them to go to university—will not stop going to university. We must expand the opportunities available to those youngsters who are not taking up the opportunities.
  One of the interesting things about the Bill is that other parts of it—along with the School Standards and Framework Bill—are designed to transform the life chances of those children by transforming the standard of education they receive in their home communities.
  Ms Margaret Hodge: I represent one of the constituencies to which my hon. Friend referred where participation in higher education is very low. Does he agree that the reason why so few people from places such as Barking go to university is that they are falling behind in literacy and numeracy, at GCSE level, in A-levels and at GNVQ level? That is what is inhibiting their access to university; not the cost to the individual graduate of paying for their higher education.
  Mr. Blunkett: I agree entirely and, in implementing our coherent proposals, we will ensure that resources go into lifelong learning. We will build on the proposals in "The Learning Age", which will transform the life chances of adults as well as young people.
  I wish to refer to the remaining clauses of the Bill. Clauses 1 to 13 seek to introduce a general teaching council, which will lift the esteem, professional standing, morale and motivation of the teaching profession. I do not want to make a party political point, but I welcome the conversion of the Conservative party to the idea of a general teaching council. It is a trifle strange to see the undoubted abilities of Baroness Blatch devoted to savaging the general teaching council on the ground that it does not go far enough when, as a Minister, she spent her time resisting bringing one in. Never mind—for some hypocrisy is a watchword; for others, it is a badge they wear on their sleeve. We all agree that a general teaching council is a good thing. We do not agree with the amendments tabled by Baroness Young, but we will look at implementing the principles and the thrust of the amendment tabled by Earl Baldwin.
  Mr. Andrew Lansley: Will the Secretary of State give credit to Sir Malcolm Thornton, the former Member for Crosby, who introduced a private Member's Bill, on an all-party basis, before the general election to promote a general teaching council?
  Mr. Blunkett: I am happy to do so. Sir Malcolm Thornton worked hard on the Bill and held his commitment to education dear to his heart.

  969
  Clause 15 provides for qualifications for head teachers. There can be nothing more important than the leadership and management skills of our heads.
  Mr. Phil Willis: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Blunkett: I hear, "Hear, hear" from a former head teacher, who knows very well that that is the case.
  More than 3,000 heads have already committed themselves to taking up the national professional qualification for head teachers, and we will accelerate that in the immediate future so that people have the commitment, qualifications and wherewithal to do the job.
  Clause 16 provides for an induction year for new teachers, with the kind of support and backing to make it possible for young teachers to want to stay in the profession and to be able to do a good job. Clauses 17 and 18 introduce inspection of higher education teaching institutions, so that there is no doubt about the law. We have dealt with clauses 19 to 23, and clauses 24 and 25, which apply to Scotland, are consequential.
  Mr. Donald Gorrie: Will the Secretary of State give way on that point about Scotland?
  Mr. Blunkett: I wish that I had never mentioned it now.
  Mr. Gorrie: What is the Secretary of State's thinking on the well-rehearsed anomaly whereby English, Welsh and Northern Irish students will have to pay more than all other European nationals to go to Scottish universities? Given that the Scottish Minister with whom my colleagues and I raised the issue said that the amount of money involved was relatively small, why cannot the anomaly be removed?
  Mr. Blunkett: In fact, the number of applications from those students has increased. The fee level cannot be a deterrent to students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland, as those who are in hardship—whose family background is not affluent—will not have to pay the fee in Scotland, any more than they will have to in England, Wales or Northern Ireland. I believe that it is important that students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland understand that.
  Mr. Roy Beggs: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Blunkett: I shall give way once more, out of sheer masochism.
  Mr. Beggs: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. Can he tell me—so that I can answer the questions of students who may have to pay tuition fees—whether there will be a loan facility to enable them to meet those fees, bearing in mind the fact that a large number of parents do not in any way contribute to help their children through university education?
  Mr. Blunkett: I can confirm that they will be given the contingent loan. The loan will be paid at a such a level
  970
  that students will be no more disadvantaged than they are under the current system of the assessment of family income and the amount that they have to find—they will not be disadvantaged in any new way.
  Mr. Andrew Welsh: May I correct the Secretary of State? In fact, there has been a 12 per cent. reduction in the number of English and Welsh students at Dundee university and an alarming reduction of 23 per cent. in the number of applications from Northern Ireland. The anomaly whereby English, Welsh and Northern Irish students pay £1,000 extra for a four-year honours degree course is having an effect, but, for less than £2 million a year, his Department could remove that anomaly and not offload the cost on to individual students and families.
  Mr. Blunkett: The hon. Gentleman has me at a disadvantage in that I do not know the ins and outs of Dundee university. I cannot for the life of me understand why what he says should be the case, as I happen to think that Dundee is a wonderful place. I have always enjoyed going there, and if I am to enjoy going there in the future I had better be very careful in what I say. I shall certainly draw the matter to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Scottish Office.
  Clauses 26 and 27 will introduce a right that people were seeking to obtain in 1944—the right of young people aged 16 and 17 to receive education and training once they are at work. They should have access to at least a day of either in-work or out-of-work training and education for a verifiable qualification. That is a long-standing aspiration, which has been neglected; we are putting the matter right so that young people who may not have done all that well at school will have a second chance. We hope that we shall give them the inspiration and expectation to take the opportunities that are offered.
  Those opportunities are the subject of argument not because people are not prepared to take them or because they do not know that they will have the resources in later life to justify taking them, but because, at the moment, someone else, somewhere else is being asked to pay for them. That is why we are asking the House to give the Bill its Second Reading, so that we can put it back into shape and go forward to offer real opportunities to all our people for the 21st century, when higher education, knowledge and learning will be the keys to success.
  4.53 pm
  Mr. Stephen Dorrell: I beg to move, To leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "this House, whilst welcoming the enhanced provisions in the Teaching and Higher Education Bill [Lords] to establish general teaching councils with the powers to take effective action in cases of professional misconduct, and, whilst also welcoming the Bill's new provisions to protect means-tested maintenance grants for students from low-income families and to ensure that first degree students from all parts of the United Kingdom will be treated on the same basis, nevertheless declines to give the Bill a Second Reading because it fails to implement the Dearing Committee's proposal for an independent review body to advise on any future changes in tuition fees."
  The Secretary of State was right to say of the Bill that he was playing the role of the chap looking in from outside the cockpit rather than that of the test pilot flying the machine. It is ironic that some of the key provisions

  971
  of the Bill as it comes to the House of Commons more closely reflect the position taken by Conservative Members—especially in relation to higher education—than that adopted by the Government. As amended, the Bill safeguards—critically—the payment of maintenance to students from a low-income background. That was a central recommendation of the Dearing review, which was written into the Bill in another place—we shall certainly seek to maintain it in Committee and on Report.
  The Bill as it stands also holds out the prospect of a more realistic general teaching council than was proposed by the Government. We shall also promote discussion of that in Committee and, if necessary, on Report. As the hon. Members for Angus (Mr. Welsh) and for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) pointed out, the Bill, as amended, reasserts the principle that students from all parts of the United Kingdom should be treated similarly when they go to Scottish universities—we shall certainly seek to sustain that principle.
  All those amendments, which were made in another place, improved the Bill. Nevertheless, I believe that the House should not support the Bill, chiefly because the Secretary of State made it plain that, except possibly in relation to some minor details, the Government have not moved an iota in their thinking on the proposals that they announced last July. The key issues are those concerning higher education, on which it is quite clear that the Secretary of State's thinking has not moved, which is why I shall invite Conservative Members not to support the Bill on Second Reading, and instead to support the reasoned amendment that I have moved.
  Before I come to the provisions on higher education, I shall say a word about the general teaching council. As the Secretary of State made clear, the establishment of a general teaching council is a long-standing proposal. The idea is motivated by a desire to promote self-regulation in the teaching profession along the lines of those accepted in other professions, particularly the General Medical Council in the medical profession.
  The idea is to promote teachers' professional status, but the Government's original proposal combines the worst of all possible worlds. It will make membership of the council compulsory and it will require all teachers to pay a contribution, but the only function of the council that is specified in the Bill is to give advice to the Secretary of State. I do not see how that interpretation of the idea of a general teaching council will deliver the objective of promoting the professional status of teachers. The Government's proposal is entirely friendless.
  That is the background to the amendment that was tabled by Lady Young and accepted in another place last week. It would give the general teaching council a real role in three subjects: the standards of teaching, the standards of professional conduct and questions of medical fitness to teach. I hope that the Government will reflect on the amendment.
  I have some sympathy with what Baroness Blackstone said in another place on teaching standards but, if the General Medical Council parallel is to be followed, the Government must consider giving the general teaching council a real function in questions of professional misconduct and medical fitness to teach. I hope that the Minister for School Standards will elaborate on the Government's thinking on those issues.
  The Minister for School Standards (Mr. Stephen Byers): I shall address those concerns in detail later this
  972
  evening. On a specific point relating to Baroness Young's amendment in the House of Lords, does the right hon. Gentleman, on behalf of the Conservative party, agree that the general teaching council should have powers to bar teachers on child protection grounds? Does he agree that it should have responsibility for child protection matters?
  Mr. Dorrell: I shall reflect on what the Minister tells us when those issues are debated in Committee. As I said, I have considerable sympathy with what Baroness Blackstone said when she set out the Government's reservations on teaching standards, particularly from the point of view of the Teacher Training Agency and Ofsted.
  I should be interested to hear whether the Minister is arguing that questions of the maintenance of professional discipline, and of professional misconduct, which, in the medical profession, are delegated to the General Medical Council, cannot be delegated to the general teaching council in the teaching context. I leave my position open and will reflect on what he says in Committee, as a thoughtful spokesman should on an issue of such importance and sensitivity.
  We should not ask teachers to pay for a new bureaucracy that has no significant function in enhancing the professional status of teaching. If the Minister's position is that those issues are all too sensitive to be delegated to an independent organisation such as the general teaching council, he should come clean and say so plainly. He should not promote a model of a general teaching council but accord it no substantive voice in the future of the profession.
  Mr. Byers: I asked a clear question, to which the right hon. Gentleman must have a reply: does he agree that the general teaching council should have powers over child protection matters? Yes or no.
  Mr. Dorrell: I have already given the answer to that, which is that I do not intend to give an answer today, because I look forward to hearing the Minister's views on the subject in Committee. That is an entirely straightforward position.
  The Secretary of State beguilingly referred to clause 26, which gives 16 and 17-year-olds a statutory right to time off work for study or training, as though it would assist in the development of life chances for all students of that age. The real risk of the provision is that it will undermine what he is seeking to do elsewhere in his Department: create job opportunities for 16 and 17-year-olds who have left school.
  The Secretary of State loves to talk about the importance of cutting youth unemployment and creating job opportunities for young people, but the financial memorandum to the Bill makes it clear that he expects the provisions of clause 26 to increase the cost of employing young people by between £60 million and £130 million. My concern is that the clause will reduce the job opportunities and life chances for precisely the people for whom he expresses concern.
  The key issue is the future of higher education. I remind the House of the background. The Secretary of State appears to believe that there is doubt about whether the previous Government were proud of having expanded higher education. We are certainly proud of the fact that, during our 18 years in office, the British higher education

  973
  system expanded to the point that, whereas in 1979 one in eight of 18-year-olds went on to higher education, the figure when we left office was one in three. That was an unprecedented expansion of opportunity in higher education, and all members of the previous Government are proud of it.
  There has been wide agreement for some years that, as we look to the future of higher education, more money will be needed to allow more expansion to go ahead on a properly funded basis. Conservative and Labour Front Benchers have also agreed that that extra money cannot come from the taxpayer. That was written into the Labour manifesto and was part of the analysis that led to the establishment of the Dearing review by my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), when she was Secretary of State.
  The Dearing review was established in May 1996 with a broadly shared analysis between the two Front Benches. We wanted more money to go into higher education but we knew that it could not come from the taxpayer. Both the Secretary of State—then the shadow Secretary of State—and the Government of the day supported the establishment of the review to consider how that circle could be squared.
  Presumably, when the Secretary of State expressed the Labour party's support for the establishment of the Dearing review as a properly thought-out process for resolving the dilemmas for the future of higher education, he had an open mind and was willing to reflect on the resulting recommendations.
  The Prime Minister appeared to think that the Labour party went further than that, and the Secretary of State was right to correct him, saying that neither Labour nor the Conservatives committed themselves in advance to accepting the Dearing recommendations. It would have been strange to subcontract policy making on a key national issue to an independent review. We certainly did not do that, and I am pleased that the Secretary of State has confirmed that the Labour party did not do it either.
  That is not what the Prime Minister said at the Dispatch Box last October or in February this year. He said:
  "I made it clear throughout that we should abide by the recommendations of the Dearing committee".—[Official Report, 29 October 1997; Vol. 299, c. 892.]
  He did no such thing, and it is as well for him that he did not. He later said:
  "we said specifically, as, indeed, did the Conservatives, that we would abide by the outcome of the Dearing committee report".—[Official Report, 25 February 1998; Vol. 306, c. 364.]
  He was wrong about us: we did not say that. More importantly, he was wrong about himself, because he did not say it either.
  That is symptomatic of the widespread confusion in the Government on the subject of paying for higher education. Before the general election, the Prime Minister did not say that the Labour Government would abide by Dearing. When asked by the Evening Standard on 14 April 1997 what Labour's view would be, he said:
  "Labour has no plans to introduce tuition fees for higher education."
  974
  That view was reinforced by the present Foreign Secretary who, talking to Leeds students on 24 April last year, said:
  "We are quite clear that tuition costs must be met by the state."
  That was the position that Labour took before the general election. In fact, it went further: on 11 March last year, the man who is now the Minister for the millennium dome, the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), invited representatives of student newspapers all over Britain to come to Millbank tower to be briefed about Labour's view on paying for the future of higher education. There was much discussion about how Labour in office would deal with the aftermath of Dearing.
  In the presence of the Minister for the millennium dome, Mr. Nick Pearce, who was then Bryan Davies's research policy adviser on higher education, speaking with the authority of the Labour party, said to the assembled student journalists:
  "On Dearing and tuition fees? Our proposals only relate to maintenance support… The public purse should support tuition fees, and the individual—in a fair and much more progressive fashion—should repay the maintenance costs."
  In other words, he made it crystal clear at that official briefing that the Government did not intend to introduce tuition fees.
  Ms Hodge: That is not so.
  Mr. Dorrell: I shall read it again as the hon. Lady appears to have missed it. He said:
  "Our proposals only relate to maintenance support".
  The Government are wrong, but that is what the spokesman told that gathering of student journalists on 11 March last year. Of course, that confirms what we all know to be true, which is that, ahead of the election, Labour had decided to abolish the maintenance grant. Now, the Government like to claim that the passage in the manifesto made that explicit and clear, but it was carefully drafted to obscure the Labour party's policy.
  Ahead of the election, the Labour party had decided to abolish the maintenance grant and so the Secretary of State was embarrassed last July because the policy that he had espoused ahead of the election was blown out of the water by Dearing. Dearing's policy was to abolish the maintenance grant and leave tuition fees alone. He had made that clear, as had spokesmen in briefings, to the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister. They expected Labour's policy to be the abolition of maintenance grant and they expected to leave tuition fees alone.
  The Secretary of State finds himself in the mess that he is in because Lord Dearing realised when he analysed that policy prescription that it simply did not fly. The Secretary of State's policy was blown out of the water before it was announced.
  Mr. Blunkett: I shall make the position explicitly clear. We said all along that we would await the outcome of the Dearing inquiry. On numerous occasions, I said both publicly and in the House that I was waiting to be persuaded. The manifesto was unequivocal. I shall repeat what it states on page 9:
  "The costs of student maintenance should be repaid by graduates on an income-related basis".

  975
  You cannot get clearer than that, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Dorrell: The manifesto was silent on how much of their maintenance costs the Labour party expected students to pay. It is not an accident, of course, that the manifesto was silent on the subject. If it were Labour's policy to abolish the maintenance grant, plain words were available to Labour spokesmen that could have made that clear to students, but the Labour party did not make it clear. It said that it would change the basis on which student maintenance costs were recovered when the student was working. It did not make clear how much of student maintenance costs students would be expected to pay under the present proposals.
  Miss Melanie Johnson: Millions of people will be interested in this debate. If they have been listening to the right hon. Gentleman's contribution, they must be mystified about where his arguments are coming from. What is wrong with the proposals that have been put forward and how would the Opposition tackle the problems—problems that we were left because of the previous Government's proud record of expansion, which has the same quality as their record of expansion in primary schools? They put more children into primary school with the same amount of money in larger classes and they say that it is a proud record of expansion of the primary sector. Let us hear the arguments about tackling the issues that people outside need—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has gone over the score.
  Mr. Dorrell: I should be happy to present the arguments. They were those that Lord Dearing used to blow the Secretary of State's intended policy out of the water before it was announced.
  Lord Dearing expected to recommend the abolition of maintenance grant. The key fact of the Dearing review is that, when its members analysed that policy option, the report makes their conclusion clear. Paragraph 66 makes clear what is wrong with the Secretary of State's policy, stating:
  "Making a decision on a preferred option involves judgment about the relative weight to be given to the various criteria… It also requires a careful scrutiny of the evidence. In going through that process we all changed and developed our views: we did not end up where we started."
  The review committee did not end up where it started or where the Secretary of State finished up—with a predisposition to abolish the maintenance grant.
  It is important to understand why the Dearing review rejected the Secretary of State's policy prescription. It recognised that the evidence shows that, if one tries to pay for the continued expansion of higher education by abolishing the maintenance grant, one loads the full burden of that policy on students from a low-income background. If one abolished the maintenance grant today, the well-off student would have to pay no more as he or she never got a grant. Students from low-income backgrounds receive means-tested maintenance support under the present system. A policy of abolishing such support will result in students from low-income backgrounds contributing, exclusively, to the cost of expanding the higher education system.
  976
  Lord Dearing recognised that it is perverse to raise money to pay for the expansion of higher education exclusively from students from low-income backgrounds. That is why he rejected the proposals to abolish the maintenance grant and for means-tested fees and why he instead recommended a blanket fee payable by all students from whatever background, supported by a loan so that the student would pay back the fee out of his or her enhanced earnings. That is where the Secretary of State is right and I agree with him on that—the student goes through higher education and receives enhanced earning potential as a result and so should be expected to contribute towards the cost of that education from the later enhanced earnings.
  Where the Secretary of State is wrong is in withdrawing the targeted assistance to look after the maintenance costs of students from low-income backgrounds. That is where he rejected the central finding of Dearing—Dearing was right and the Secretary of State is wrong.
  Ms Abbott: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is precisely because of the Dearing recommendation that some of us have difficulties with the proposal to abolish the maintenance grant? Jeer as my hon. Friends may, it is not common sense to say that we shall encourage black and working-class students to go on to higher education by loading them down with additional debt.
  Mr. Dorrell: I am not sure whether I shall embarrass the hon. Lady by saying this, but I totally agree with her on that point. The question that she put to—
  Ms Hodge: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dorrell: No, I am going to answer the hon. Lady's hon. Friend first. The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) asked the Secretary of State how one would enhance the potential for a low-income student going to university by increasing his or her debt. That is the question which he did not answer and there is no answer, as Lord Dearing found. When considering the options for funding the expansion of higher education, the most powerful weapon open to us to make access more equitable is targeted assistance to deal with maintenance for students from a low-income background.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Dorrell: I am spoilt for choice. I shall give way to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster).
  Mr. Don Foster: As the right hon. Gentleman is interested in documents that remain silent, and as his reasoned amendment is silent on the matter, will he confirm that it is his policy and that of the Conservative party to impose a £1,000 tuition fee on all students, as Dearing recommended? Therefore, will he confirm that, even if the present system remained exactly as it was in relation to maintenance, his party's proposals would increase the levels of debt of all students, including the least well-off?
  Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman is right. That is the difference between the position of the Liberal Democrats

  977
  and that of the Conservative Opposition. It is easy to defend our position. The argument for seeking a contribution from students is that they will benefit from enhanced earnings in later life, but all students will receive the same level of enhancement and all should be expected to make the same contribution out of their later enhanced earnings. The problem is about equitable access for students from low-income backgrounds. That is a classic case of a public policy objective that can best be delivered by targeted assistance. That is what means-tested maintenance support is.
  The Prime Minister loves to say that, under the Secretary of State's proposals, students from low-income backgrounds will pay no fees. That is true, but people who can win places in higher education institutions can work out that they would be better off paying £3,000 of fees, as Lord Dearing recommended, than paying £5,265 of maintenance, as the Secretary of State recommends. The calculation is straightforward. Students do not have get past GCSE to work it out.
  Ms Hodge: As I understand it—it is slightly difficult—the right hon. Gentleman would reintroduce full grants instead of a mixture of grants and loans for students. The cost in the first and second year would be about £500 million. Would he fund that by cuts elsewhere in the education budget or by increased income tax?
  Mr. Dorrell: It is easy to suggest that I am espousing a policy and then say that it has an impossible cost. I have made it crystal clear that I am in favour of the student finance proposals tabled by Lord Dearing, which do not impose public spending costs of £500 million. Lord Dearing recommends that all students should pay a £1,000 tuition fee, as the hon. Member for Bath said, supported by a loan, and that those who currently have half their maintenance cost financed through the maintenance grant should continue to receive that level of support. The arguments that persuaded Lord Dearing are wholly persuasive. The key problem for the Secretary of State, and our regret about the way in which the Government have handled the issue, is that he did not give himself time to reflect on Lord Dearing's advice.
  Mr. Dawson: The right hon. Gentleman rightly recognised that the crucial problem of further and higher education is getting more funding. Surely his proposals would allow less funding than would the Government's. Would that not give universities a licence to charge their own fees? Is he not letting down the whole further and higher education sector?
  Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman did not listen to what I said in reply to the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge). Lord Dearing's report sets out the figures on which his recommendation was based and makes it clear that raising a tuition fee from all students, to be met out of enhanced earnings, would allow substantial new resources to flow into the higher education sector.
  Last summer, the Government were left high and dry. Their anticipated policy was to pay no grant and levy no fee. Lord Dearing made that impossible by recommending that we keep the present loan and grant mix for maintenance and introduce tuition fees. The
  978
  Government's problem was that they did not allow enough time to consider the recommendations. Within hours, the Secretary of State was at the Dispatch Box announcing his conclusion: that we should go ahead with a proposal that would abolish the maintenance grant, make less well-off students £5,265 worse off at the end of a three-year degree course and introduce fees that make better-off students £3,000 worse off. One does not need to have won a place in higher education to work out that his package is perverse because it loads the cost of expansion of higher education on to students and families from low-income backgrounds.
  In their haste, the Government also got into a series of unnecessary policy confusions. First, there was the fiasco of gap-year students, where they had three policies in 10 days, and Baroness Blackstone, in announcing the third policy, sought to persuade the world that it was a planned development through three rapid-fire phases.
  We had the problem of English, Welsh and Northern Irish students going to Scottish universities. It is plainly absurd that a student from the Mezzogiorno or Lapland can get into a Scottish university on terms not available to students from England, Wales or Northern Ireland.
  Dr. Brian Iddon: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dorrell: I shall give way happily; I look forward with keen anticipation to the hon. Gentleman defending that.
  Dr. Iddon: I am interested in the fiascos that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. What did he think about the fiasco of top-up fees? Does he support them or not?
  Mr. Dorrell: Lord Dearing set out the terms under which, in some circumstances, he thinks that fee flexibility should be allowed to institutions. That is a proper basis for proceeding on the issue.
  The Secretary of State did not resolve the question of English, Welsh and Northern Irish students in Scottish universities. That is an issue not merely for individual students but for many institutions in Scotland. In Edinburgh, 48 per cent. of students come from outside Scotland; in St. Andrews, 45 per cent.; and in Dundee, 36 per cent. He simply did not address the effect of the Government's policy on the long-term viability of those institutions.
  The Government face such anomalies only because they have bungled the central question of financing higher education. There should be no room for doubt about where the Government's policy is going. In truth, it has two legs. They are committed to reducing Government expenditure on higher education. The leaked memorandum published in The Times Higher Education Supplement makes it crystal clear that the effect of the policy is to raise £150 million in the first year out of tuition fees and to spend £125 million of that in higher

  979
  education. The Government plan to cut taxpayer supported spending on higher education. That is the first leg of their policy.
  Mr. Blunkett: Rubbish.
  Mr. Dorrell: In that case, the Secretary of State should come to the Dispatch Box to say that Government spending on higher education next year will be enhanced as a result of the introduction of tuition fees.
  Mr. Blunkett: I am happy to confirm that we shall spend £165 million: £125 million direct to the institutions and £40 million in enhanced hardship payments and other measures, including the facility for part-timers that I mentioned in my speech. That is £165 million over and above what the previous Government were prepared to commit, plus £100 million for further education over and above what the previous Government were going to commit. That is the answer to the challenge that the right hon. Gentleman gave me on 23 July, when he suggested that there would be no more money.
  Mr. Dorrell: The £165 million has always been presented by the Government as money for higher and further education. If they are now announcing that the whole £165 million is going into higher education, it is a change in their announced position.
  Mr. Don Foster: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is understood that the extra £165 million that is going into our universities, which is welcome, comes largely from restructuring the way in which student grants, loans and fees are paid? He asked the Secretary of State a fair question. How much money from the introduction of student fees will go to universities next year? Many of us would like an answer to that.
  Mr. Dorrell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention and I agree with him. Of course, we have not yet received an answer to that question.
  The Government's policy is to cut taxpayer funding to universities and—perhaps more importantly—to load the effect of that disproportionately on to low-income families. We heard the Secretary of State deny that there has been an effect on access. He glossed over the effect on access for mature students, but the number of mature students aged 21 to 24 has fallen this year by 13 per cent. and those aged 25 and over by 18 per cent.—so much for the Secretary of State's commitment to lifelong learning. That is the Blunkett effect, and if the Secretary of State is not ashamed of it, he ought to be.
  The Secretary of State spoke earlier about his desire for students from a low-income backgrounds to have a better life chance and a better opportunity to get into higher education. In reality, his policy is disproportionately to load the costs on to those students, to throw over the Dearing analysis and recommendations and to promote a Bill that would make low-income students worse off. That is why we shall try to sustain the amendments that were supported in the other place, which would make this a better Bill than the Secretary of State wants it to be.
  5.30 pm
  Ms Margaret Hodge: Many hon. Members want to speak in the debate, so I shall confine my remarks to commenting on the proposals relating to student finance. That is not to undervalue some of the other important and good proposals and initiatives contained in the Bill, such as the general teaching council and the new compulsory qualification for head teachers, but I wish to focus on the subject that has aroused the greatest controversy.
  I have rarely heard so much woolly thinking, so many double standards and so much humbug as has been expressed in the past few months on this issue. For the Conservatives suddenly to pretend that they are defending the interests of poor people by retaining grants is laughable. A party that was responsible for creating greater division between rich and poor than there has been at any time for the past 100 years lacks all credibility when its members suddenly don new clothes. Their claim to be protecting the poor rings hollow and their response to the Government's proposals is more about shallow oppositionism than about responsible opposition. It is an attitude which I traditionally associate with the militants, whose defining characteristic was that they wanted to remain in permanent opposition.
  To hear the Liberal Democrats parade a determination never to take any tough decisions on education spending shows their essential weakness.
  Mr. Willis: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Hodge: I have not delivered my good line on the Liberal Democrats, so I shall not give way just yet. I am astounded by the infinite elasticity of the 1p on income tax and it reminds me of nothing so much as my teenage daughters' propensity to spend, respend and then reclaim their monthly allowance.
  Mr. Willis: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. As I have not yet had the opportunity to speak on the Liberal Democrats' policies this afternoon, she is ahead of me. However, I can tell her that the tough decision on higher education funding is to increase direct taxation and to increase the level of state input. That is not an easy option; it is a very hard option.
  Ms Hodge: The problem with that point is that the Liberal Democrats said in their manifesto that they would put 1p on income tax, whereas we have already committed more than that to our proposals to improve standards in schools.
  To those few Labour Members who are worried about the Government's proposals, I say that defending the status quo on student funding does little to defend the interests of working-class young people. It does nothing to improve their access to higher education and its value in redistributing power and wealth is questionable.
  Mr. Corbyn: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Ms Hodge: I am very conscious that others want to speak, but I shall give way.
  Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend will be familiar with the fact that my constituency contains the head office of the

  981
  National Union of Students and the university of North London. Both organisations are concerned about the drop in student applications for the forthcoming year, the increasing hardship created by the loan system and the deterrent effect of the fee system, especially on mature students. Is my hon. Friend unaware that the vice-chancellor of the university of North London is strongly against the proposals, because he wants to protect an excellent institution, which is trying to promote mature student work?
  Ms Hodge: First, the National Union of Students supports our policy on replacing maintenance grants with loans and, secondly, my hon. Friend should relate his comments to the facts, which are that there has not been a drop in applications among those who are most likely to be members of the NUS.
  Mr. Llew Smith: Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?
  Ms Hodge: I will not, simply because of time.
  Our starting point has to be that the status quo is not an option. When I went to university, 5 per cent.—one in 20—of my generation enjoyed that privilege; today, 30 per cent.—one in three—get a degree. That is a welcome change and it is a policy area on which the Conservative record is half good—half good because the Conservative Government allowed the expansion to occur—but half bad because they did not fund that expansion properly. From 1989–90 onwards, the number of students doubled, but the money available to universities increased by only 40 per cent., so funding per student was cut by 25 per cent. The real value of grants to students was also cut when the system of loans was introduced, which is what created student poverty: too little money, with repayment terms that were far too harsh.
  The Conservatives' system of student finance hit the poorest students hardest, and for Conservative Members to argue in the Chamber today that it did not is sheer hypocrisy. The Conservative Government were not willing to put more money into higher education, so they capped student numbers. The party now pretending to protect the sector acted to destroy that sector when in government. The party pretending to defend the interests of poor students attacked those poor students when in government. The Conservatives cut grants and brought in loans, they cut per capita funding and they capped student numbers. That is the miserable legacy—the status quo—that we inherited and we had to do something.
  We could have simply put a great deal more money into the system, as the Liberal Democrats urge. To return us to the system that I enjoyed in 1979 would involve at least 2p on income tax. In the language of priorities, do hon. Members honestly believe that that would have been a bold and proper course of action? I think not. We want to ensure greater equality of opportunity in education for all our young people—for the many not the few. It is scandalous that, at present, two thirds of those who enjoy higher education come from the top two socio-economic groupings, whereas only one in 10 come from a background where their parents are either unskilled or semi-skilled.
  982
  What is stopping working-class children from accessing higher education is not the cost to them of that education. What is stopping them is that they are not obtaining the appropriate qualifications and skills. There are fewer working-class people with basic skills, fewer with five GCSEs grade A to C, and fewer with level 3 qualifications in GNVQs or A-levels. I know that all too well from my own constituency.
  Mr. Vernon Coaker: I was interested to hear my hon. Friend's comments on the reasons why people from lower socio-economic groups do not go to university. Does she agree that the crucial issue is expectations among families of those groups and that if we can raise those expectations, we can raise the number of people from lower socio-economic groups who go on to higher education?
  Ms Hodge: I entirely agree with that. That is a crucial issue for me in my constituency.
  If we are concerned with equality—
  Mr. Llew Smith rose—
  Hon. Members: Give way.
  Mr. Dorrell rose—
  Ms Hodge: May I finish the point?
  If we are concerned with equality, we must prioritise investment so that it makes the greatest difference—by focusing it on working-class children, mainly in schools and mainly at primary level. Yet how do we currently spend public money? We divide the education cake as follows. In higher education, we spend £6,000 of public money per student per annum; in further education, we spend about £2,000 per student per annum; and in schools, we spend about £2,000 per child per annum. The bold way forward, to ensure greater equality, is to redistribute that public cake; the Bill contains the first steps toward that redistribution.
  Mr. Dorrell: As the hon. Lady does not seem to want to give way to her hon. Friends, I shall ask a question that may have been occurring to them. She says that the problem of access for students from a low-income background is that they tend to have worse A-level qualifications than their better-off counterparts. Perhaps, then, she will comment on the table in Lord Dearing's report which shows that, of students with identical A-level qualifications, those from a better-off background are almost twice as likely to get into higher education as those from a worse-off background. A-level qualifications are not the only issue; there are other problems of equitable access for those from a low-income background.
  Ms Hodge: I invite the right hon. Gentleman to join me in my constituency. If he were so to do, he would see that not qualifications alone, but expectations matter. If we can resolve that, we shall do an enormous amount to improve—
  Mrs. Theresa May: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Hodge: I want to get on, so that other people have a chance to participate.

  983
  I was speaking about the way in which we cut the cake. If one compares our expenditure on higher education with that of other countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development league, our current expenditure profile becomes even more questionable. We spend $15,000 per student per annum on students in higher education. The Americans spend about $11,800 and the French and Germans $6,000. Yet more than 20 per cent. of British young people do not progress past level 1, whereas in Germany, only 14 per cent. are of that level, and in Sweden, 8 per cent.
  Therefore, asking students to contribute toward the costs of providing their higher education and thus reducing the public spending burden will, over time, release resources to redistribute to those in greatest educational need. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, we are asking students to pay only when they can afford to. If a student becomes a mother and does not work, she will not have to pay. Students will pay only on an income-contingent basis.
  As we have said previously in the Chamber, under the system that we have inherited, if one earns £17,000 per annum, one is expected to pay £30 a week. Under the new system proposed by the Government, that amount will reduce to £12 a week. We all know, as do young people, that their job opportunities and earning power are enhanced by graduating. Unemployment is halved, and figures given to me by the Library show that a graduate earns, on average, £457 a week, whereas a non-graduate earns £237 a week.
  Mr. Llew Smith: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Ms Hodge: I am coming to the issue that concerns my hon. Friend.
  Will people from poor backgrounds be put off from applying by the new system? I draw attention to the fact that there never has been such a thing as free education for all young people over the age of 18. Such education is free if one passes straight from school to university, but what about the 2.8 million people in further education? Anyone aged over 19 in further education is expected to pay fees. Discretionary awards for grants have more or less disappeared. There are 328,000 part-timers—mostly poorer people, often women—who do not get their fees paid. Open university students do not get their fees paid.
  Therefore, we have a system that funds the best-off—regressive privilege, not the progressive redistribution that we all seek. We then fund the best with the greatest amounts by giving more money to Oxford and Cambridge than we do to other universities.
  Will poorer students be put off? Ironically, the evidence from the previous Government's term of office demonstrates that the answer is no. Between 1991 and 1995, when the system of funding was changed and we had a mixture of loans and grants, with the crippling debt that that caused, the number of working-class students doubled.
  Mr. Llew Smith rose—
  Ms Hodge: The number doubled—albeit to only 1 in 10. If those who opposed the introduction of loans and fees had been right, we would have witnessed a decline. I give way to my hon. Friend.
  Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Llew Smith: May I warn my hon. Friend about the dangers of only part-quoting my predecessor,
  984
  Aneurin Bevan, when she speaks the language of priorities? Perhaps she will return to the House at a later date and fill us in with the other part of the quotation.
  My hon. Friend says that there is no evidence to show that the new system of student finance will affect the number of people applying for courses. That certainly is not so in the case of mature students; all the statistics that I have seen show that the number of mature students applying for courses is decreasing dramatically. That is understandable, because they have a shorter time in employment in which to recoup the money.
  Ms Hodge: I am sorry if my hon. Friend does not understand the situation. The real figures that are relevant at this point in the calendar are those from people who apply straight from school, and they have not changed. Mature students, on the whole, tend to apply later, and we shall see the impact of the changes only at the start of the academic year. [Laughter.] That may be laughable, but it is a fact.
  I further say to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) that, in my surgery, the poverty that I see among those who are trying to improve their educational standards and qualifications is among those in further education, who are unemployed, and we should be trying to help those people, far more than those who, so far, remain among the more privileged class who access higher education. If we have—
  Dr. Lynne Jones: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Ms Hodge: No; I am drawing to a close.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There are at least two Members who keep interrupting the hon. Lady from a sedentary position, and really it is extremely unfair. The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) is guilty of that. She should be quiet in the Chamber.
  Ms Hodge: I am drawing my contribution to a close. With the Government's proposals, we shall have an income-contingent system; that is better for working-class young people. We shall have a system that enables us to put money into improving access; that is better for working-class young people. We shall have a system that subsidises fees just for the poor; that is better for working-class children. We shall have a system that stops the introduction of top-up fees; that is better for working-class children. We shall have a system that enables us to lift the cap on student numbers; that is better for working-class children. We shall have a system that will protect the quality of higher education; that, too, is better for working-class young people.
  The proposals in the Bill are fair, brave and much needed. Without them, the opportunities that higher education brings will be denied to thousands. The Tories ducked the issues for many years, but, in less than one year, my right hon. and hon. Friends have created a system of student finance that will start to meet the needs of both students and universities. It will create opportunity for the many, not deny it. It will alleviate poverty, not entrench it. It is progressive, not regressive, and I urge all hon. Members in the House to support it.
  5.48 pm
  Mr. Robert Jackson: I welcome the most important feature of the Bill—the introduction of a tuition fee paid by full-time students in higher education—but the details of the scheme, and the way in which the Government intend to implement it, are so ill-conceived that I shall be unable to vote for the Bill as a whole.
  I welcome the introduction of the tuition fee, for two reasons. First, it builds on the introduction in 1989, in which I had a hand, of student loans for maintenance which were a further, desirable step toward rationality and equity in the use of taxpayer's money—an issue which, to pick up a remark by the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), the previous Government did not duck.
  No one doubts that higher education is important for the country's economy. Because wholly privately funded higher education might result in lower levels of participation than is desirable for the economy, there is a strong case for using public expenditure to bring about an economically desirable level of participation. No one doubts either that higher education can provide important ladders of opportunity for able people from less-privileged backgrounds. That again justifies the use of taxpayers' money. However, it does so—this appears to be the gravamen of the argument of the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) and her associates—only if public expenditure can be shown to be achieving what it is designed to achieve in the shape of enhanced social promotion.
  The reality of higher education since 1962, when it was made free to all full-time students and the student grant was introduced, has been simply to spread higher education from a minority of the middle class to almost the whole of the middle class. The vast majority of students in higher education still come from middle-class homes and, after graduation, nearly all of them join the middle class. The hon. Member for Barking is absolutely right about that.
  The average taxpayer is significantly worse off than the average graduate and the average family from which students in higher education come. Vast amounts have been spent on social promotion without achieving the desired objective. Over the nearly 40 years of so-called "free" higher education, the net effect has been a significant negative fiscal transfer from the less well-off to the better-off. Student loans and tuition fees are two successive and desirable steps towards addressing that imbalance.
  I add that that fact points to a wider moral about the large-scale welfare reforms that the Government say that they intend to undertake. The Government seem to recognise—as we did when we occupied the Treasury Bench—that there is a limit to the proportion of national product that can be collected in taxation and spent as public expenditure. We are arguably at that limit already. If that point is accepted—and the leaks from tomorrow's Budget suggest that it has been—we are obliged to think rigorously about how to use most effectively the limited amount of taxpayers' money that we are able to spend. There must be more targeting, and that inevitably implies a shift of resources from those who are in a position to help themselves to those who are not. In that exercise, higher education is an obvious place to start.
  I remember vividly putting all those points when I took the Education (Student Loans) Act 1990 through the House. Some hon. Members who have spoken today do
  986
  not remember that. I recall the passionate opposition that the legislation met from Labour Members, including the Home Secretary who was then the shadow education spokesman. I remember also a private conversation that I had with the late John Smith, the then shadow Chancellor. I remarked to him that student grants, as part of the middle-class welfare state, were no longer sustainable, and I remember how he insisted that this and every other feature of the middle-class welfare state should be preserved. That attitude to public spending and taxation lost Labour the 1992 general election. However, as I contemplate—not without some wry amusement—the shift in Labour's position since those days, I must admit that there has been some progress.
  My second reason for supporting the principle of introducing tuition fees is that I believe it is a significant step towards greater autonomy for universities. We shall not hear very much about that issue in this debate—we certainly have not heard anything about it so far—but, until quite recently, university autonomy was a key bipartisan principle, underpinned by an array of constitutional devices designed to provide buffers and to ensure an arm's length relationship between Government and the universities.
  The reality is that, regrettably, under the previous Government—and the present Government show every sign of continuing in the same way—universities were treated not as the independent private bodies that they are in law, but as departments of the state and agencies of the Government. State agencies set targets and limits for student numbers in each institution; there is even talk of quotas for certain kinds of students. In the name of quality control, there is increasing intervention by Government-appointed bodies in every sphere of university life.
  Behind the constitutional facade of the Higher Education Funding Council for England—the successor body to the University Grants Committee—we find the collapse of university autonomy. That has brought about a decline in the sense of self-responsibility among academics, which has already led to a widespread decline in their morale. As intellectual achievement in our universities is dependent on the sense of self-worth of individuals and institutions of learning, that, in turn, is leading to an impoverishment of the academic and intellectual life of our universities. Those are powerful arguments for preserving and enhancing university autonomy. However, there is another—I think more immediately appealing—argument to which I shall return later in my speech.
  Meanwhile, constitutional devices are clearly inadequate to secure the autonomy of universities. That can be achieved only by enabling the universities to derive a significant share of their income from sources independent of the Government. One of the previous Government's best achievements was that they encouraged universities to increase their private income. However, university income from research contracts with the private sector and from overseas students must be supplemented by a regular flow of income from home students to give our universities the flexibility and the sense of self-responsibility that they need to do their work properly. This Bill offers the welcome possibility of such a flow of funds from students, and thus it is very welcome.

  987
  However, as always, the devil is in the detail. I pass over the question of how the British taxpayer will be reassured about the way in which the parents of an increasing number of students from the European Union will disclose details of their income to British authorities. I shall simply stress two very important points of detail. First, in introducing the tuition fee, the Bill proposes a new and significant restriction on university autonomy. It will not be compulsory by law to charge the fee—that has been made clear already—but there will be a legal provision preventing universities from charging tuition fees in excess of £1,000. We should remember that universities are, in law, private institutions, so the Bill contains a quite unjustified restriction on their freedom. I do not agree with any suggestion—whether from the Secretary of State, who referred to the matter in his speech, or from my party, which hints at it in the amendment—that that restriction should be strengthened further.
  A second important point of detail is that the tuition fee will not be paid by students from families whose gross family income is below £23,000 a year. As the proportion of such students at different universities will vary considerably, the Government have found it necessary to ensure that there is an equalisation mechanism, which, in turn, involves the consequence that the tuition fee will be paid into a common pool. Therefore, it becomes simply another tax, enabling—or not, as the case may be—a higher level of public expenditure on higher education. This means that the Bill, in effect, denies the very real potential of tuition fees to promote university autonomy.
  Why is that exemption being made? It will lead to a significant loss of this new resource to support higher education. The exemption will apply, in part or in whole, to some 60 per cent. of all students, and it will have the damaging effect on university autonomy that I have described. What powerful reason motivates that policy? The Government believe that free access to higher education for students from less well-off families is necessary to secure social promotion, or what is known as "access". The intention is, of course, admirable—and I dare say that we all support it—but I must tell the Government that the manner in which they are seeking to give effect to that intention is mistaken.
  For one thing, what matters to potential students with access to a loan is their future income after graduation, rather than their parental income. For another, we have been following the self-same policy since 1962 and the empirical evidence suggests that it simply does not work. That came out clearly from what the Secretary of State said about the five constituencies with very low participation rates.
  We had free higher education and student grants for more than 30 years, with almost nugatory effects on increasing the participation of students from less well-off backgrounds. That experience should give us cause for thought about whether making higher education free to students from poor families is an effective way in which to secure their participation in higher education.
  I said that I would come back to a further argument for enhancing university autonomy. The argument is this: autonomous universities operating responsively in an open market for higher education will be better at securing access and social promotion than universities operating in a system of state planning.
  988
  We have only to look at the contrast between the experience of the United States and the experience of all European countries, including Britain, to see this. The Americans have consistently achieved higher levels of participation in higher education of students from underprivileged backgrounds than we have in Europe, in spite of the almost universal existence in the US of fee paying, in both state and private universities. In Europe, where higher education has for several decades almost universally been free at the point of delivery, there has been relatively less social promotion.
  Ms Abbott: I have listened with care to the hon. Gentleman, who at least has a consistent record of supporting the student loan system. Is he not aware that in comparing the European system with the United States system, he is not comparing like with like? Just recently, the US has been lamenting the low overall standards in its education system.
  Mr. Jackson: I believe that I am comparing like with like. One of the issues that we must consider is whether it will be possible to maintain a system of uniform quality that will also be a mass system. One of the advantages of the American system is that there is a great variety in the quality, level and types of higher education. That is an important part of the process of maintaining access and developing participation in higher education. People can move through different levels of institution. That is an important point, but not central to this debate.
  The reason for the difference between the European countries and the US in this respect is that the crucial factors in the accessibility of higher education are not so much to do with price as with the size of the system and the range of its types of provision. That is the critical point. Because the Americans have autonomous universities operating in a market system, they have long since expanded higher education on a larger scale than we ever did under state planning, and their institutions have had much greater incentives to develop the kind of courses that are readily accessible to the less well off—part-time students, night class students and mature students.
  Dr. Lynne Jones: Does the hon. Gentleman have any information on working-class participation in the ivy league universities in the United States?
  Mr. Jackson: I cannot quote any figures off the top of my head, but when I was Minister for Higher Education, I went to Stanford, where I spoke to the student admissions people. It emerged clearly that despite fees of £9,000 a year, there was significantly higher participation from underprivileged backgrounds than we had at Oxford and Cambridge under a system of free entrance.
  The increase in access that we have seen in our system since 1989—one of the proud achievements of the previous Government—came about essentially because we moved, just for a time, in the direction of the American system, by shifting the state support for higher education from institutional block grants to fees paid by the state on behalf of students. I was partly responsible for that change. That gave our universities for the first time, and unfortunately only for a limited time, the incentive to recruit more students and to develop forms

  989
  of provision that went wider than the traditional staple of full-time courses for young people in the 18 to 22 age bracket.
  University autonomy, backed up by a flow of fees from all students, paid directly to each university, with the level of fees being determined by each university in competition with one another, is not only desirable in the interests of the constitutional independence of universities, the self-responsibility and morale of their staff, and their intellectual quality, but is also necessary to achieve our aims of greater social promotion.
  Access is not primarily a problem in respect of young school leavers. The proportion of young people from poorer backgrounds who get A-levels and go to university has, for many years, been quite close to the proportion of young people from better-off families going to university with the same qualifications. Access for the less well-off will be improved not by subsidies to full-time young students but, above all, by improving academic standards in the state schools, especially in the constituencies that were mentioned, and by shifting resources to provide more help for part-time and mature students. In this connection, the Government's White Paper on lifelong learning is a great disappointment, especially when it is seen against the background of the continuing obsession with the interests of full-time students, which is reflected in the Bill.
  The nationalisation of the university system, which is what has occurred, has given rise inevitably to many of the bad effects that we used to see in the old nationalised industries. The worst of those effects was excessive politicisation. We have built up a huge political vested interest among the middle classes in free or very cheap higher education for their children. That political fact weighs on us all on both sides of the House, as politicians and also as private individuals with our own children.
  The ultimate way out is for us to denationalise universities and to restore their status as private bodies operating in an open market, with the access of students of all kinds facilitated and enabled by the state. The introduction of tuition fees marks a potentially important step in that direction. I only wish that the Government had taken it with a greater sense of direction.
  6.6 pm
  Jacqui Smith: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your kindness in not expecting me to jump up and down too much. I can reassure you that it should be about nine weeks before you need to consider bringing towels and hot water with you into the Chamber.
  I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the third education Bill introduced by the Government since last May. No one can doubt the commitment of my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and his ministerial team to ensuring the priority of education in Government policy.
  Before entering the House, I spent 11 years teaching in Worcestershire. Like the vast majority of teachers, I went into the job because I wanted to impart information to young people and to ensure that they were stretched and developed to the highest standard. Unfortunately, I rarely felt that my work was being encouraged by the then Government, who only half-heartedly supported the state
  990
  comprehensive schools in which I have always taught. The previous Government at best failed to recognise my professional role, interest and input into issues such as the design and implementation of the national curriculum and assessment, and at worst blamed me and my colleagues for most social ills, from youth crime to the failures of the England cricket team. Presumably, therefore, teachers and the new Government can take some credit for the performances so far in the current test match.
  I am keen to concentrate my comments on part I of the Bill, which contains important first steps towards raising the professionalism, standing and skills of teachers, and consequently will have a key role in raising standards for our children. The importance of proposals for a general teaching council, head teacher qualifications and an induction year for newly qualified teachers does not lie only in the effects that they will have on the morale and performance of existing teachers, but relates to teacher recruitment.
  In its report on teacher recruitment, the Select Committee on Education and Employment recently highlighted the need for urgent action in that area, following submissions and evidence from a wide range of organisations. The evidence showed that there are significant problems in both the quantity and quality of teacher recruitment at all levels of the profession, from new entrants to applicants for senior management positions. The proposals that are set out in the Bill must, and I believe will, begin to address that major problem for the future of our education system.
  The proposals that have been suggested for a general teaching council have a long and distinguished pedigree. The report of the GTC, England and Wales—an alliance of many organisations supporting the establishment of a statutory GTC—claims that the first moves were made over 130 years ago. As the report states, the Education Act 1899 provided for setting up a register of teachers. The Board of Education Act 1901 laid upon the board the duty to establish a teachers registration council. Interestingly enough, civil servants produced divisive legislative proposals that could not survive. I am sure that that will not happen now.
  Those events have been followed by a series of false starts in the establishment of a general teaching council. Obviously, there are still discussions to be had about the finer points of responsibility and structure. However, I believe that, after 130 years, the new Labour Government should be congratulated on so quickly implementing the Labour party's manifesto commitments in this area. It is clear that we now have a Government who make things happen.
  My particular concern is how the GTC can promote professionalism, recruitment and retention. I believe that it should and will have a role in several areas. First, it is clear that we need to improve the image of teaching. The Select Committee's evidence shows that teaching is no longer seen as a prestigious job. In its submission to the Committee, the National Union of Teachers highlighted a worrying aspect when it stated:
  "A measure of the seriousness of the current problems in recruitment and retention, is the fact that few teachers themselves would now suggest becoming a teacher to their pupils, or their own family or friends."
  During my teaching career, I always tried to encourage my brightest and best students to consider teaching. However, as I also encouraged them to become actively

  991
  involved in politics of all colours and to consider standing for office, I suppose that I could be seen by some as an unreliable source of advice. I hope that we shall soon return to the time when teachers feel confident about recommending to their students that they should undertake teaching as a career.
  Mr. Don Foster: I hope that the hon. Lady will understand that I support her argument that we need to give greater professional status to those in teaching. Does she believe that that venture was helped by the Government's decision to phase teachers' pay awards, so that teachers this year will receive an award at less than the rate of inflation?
  Jacqui Smith: Teachers clearly understand—this is what I said to my colleagues during the run-up to the general election—that there are priorities in education. However, the Labour party made it clear in its manifesto that there is a need to maintain spending targets. Teachers understand that and recognise that it is not possible in nine months to undo the damage that was done during 18 years of Conservative government.
  I am glad that the Government are already acting to improve the image of teachers. I was fortunate to have a night off recently, and I went to the cinema. I there saw an advertisement that included my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. My right hon. Friend and a variety of other famous people talked about their best teachers. I understand that the advertisement is to be extended to television. I welcome it as a good effort in starting to raise the image of teachers, but there is far more to be done. The GTC must take seriously its role in promoting the image of teaching.
  When it comes to work load, teachers expect to work hard, and do so. However, with the increasing range of responsibilities in the education system, it is crucial that they work smart. Spending public money on training and employing professional teachers and then expecting them to spend their time photocopying, completing forms and child minding is a waste of financial and human resources.
  I welcome the fact that the Department has already started to examine bureaucracy in teaching. There could be a further task for the GTC, in promoting consideration of the role of the teacher in an increasingly challenging and complex system. For example, the GTC should have something to say about the key tasks of teachers and what could more efficiently be delegated to support staff.
  The status and image of teaching are linked to the quality of those entering the profession. During my time in the profession, teaching sixth formers, I was concerned that standards of entry to teacher education appeared to be lowered. The Select Committee report highlighted that, especially in the area of shortage-subject trainees. I can understand that the short-term response to a shortage of trainees in maths or science, for example, may be to reduce entry requirements, but that can set off a vicious circle in recruitment.
  When sixth formers see teachers with poorer qualifications, it lowers the status of the profession in their eyes and makes them less likely, not more, to consider it for themselves. I know that there is a genuine concern that increasing standards of entry to the profession could exacerbate shortages, but I believe that we must establish a virtuous circle of high expectations,
  992
  high qualifications and consequently higher status for teachers. The GTC has an important role to play in considering that issue.
  The GTC has a role also, when it comes to recruitment, in tackling the under-representation of groups such as ethnic minority communities along with people with disabilities. It is important to ensure that we are recruiting the best and most talented people into teaching, but teachers have a wider impact as role models for their students. An unrepresentative profession will have effects on the achievements of groups that cannot see themselves included with the adults with whom they are most often in contact.
  As for the induction year, when I entered the profession, I had the benefit of a probationary year. There were shortcomings in the system, but it was recognised that support and professional development could not suddenly stop when students started work in their first job. Indeed, that is when they need the most help, to build on their strengths and to recognise their weaknesses. The phasing out of the provision from 1989 left induction processes very much to the resources and inclinations of individual schools or local education authorities.
  The reality is that while induction is still a sign of good practice in the best schools, standard and delivery differ and lack of status and finance means that it can easily be downgraded. A structured induction year is an important entitlement. It gives confidence to new entrants that a coherent path of career and professional development exists. Therefore, it is a further aid to recruitment and retention.
  To be truly effective, there must be clear continuity from the career-entry profile, to be provided by training providers from May. My criticism of the old probationary year is that it often did not incorporate clear objectives for the individual new teacher. The new induction year must have clear criteria and personalised action plans to provide structure. In that way, it can be the first stage of continuing professional development, rather than simply a measure of time served without too many problems.
  I hope that the Government will consider in future how the induction procedures can be developed, to provide support for returners to the profession.
  Mr. Lansley: To take up the hon. Lady's argument about promoting the status of the teaching profession, would it not be better for the GTC to have powers in relation to such matters as the conduct of teachers and medical fitness to teach rather than merely being an advisory body?
  Jacqui Smith: As I said earlier, there are still issues that need to be discussed, but if the general teaching council is to gain the faith of teachers, it needs to be able to develop its own responsibilities over time. That is why I support the proposals in the Bill.
  On qualification for headship, the Bill addresses the two areas of most need in terms of professional development—the new entrant and the aspiring head teacher. However, I am sure that the Department for Education and Employment is aware that there is a risk of a gap appearing in the middle. The lack of a coherent professional development programme in the teaching profession is an area which will need some attention.

  993
  I welcome the national professional qualification for headship and the work that has already been developed through good schemes such as Headlamp, but the mandatory element is important. It highlights the fact that this should be an entitlement, and it will also bring to the forefront the need for finance to support the training. I particularly welcome the flexibility in the use of the standards fund to support training.
  It is not sufficient to wait until people are appointed as heads to train them. There is a clear consensus that the leadership of a school is a key determinant of the standards achieved in it. New heads need to hit the ground running, to ensure that standards are maintained and raised in our schools.
  Some have argued that the need to achieve a qualification in advance will restrict the supply of candidates for headship. I disagree. My experience is that it is sometimes those with most potential who lack the confidence to apply. Unfortunately, that particularly relates to women applicants, who are four times less likely in the primary sector, and three times less likely in the secondary sector, than their male colleagues to become heads. The opportunity to undertake training in advance could increase the confidence of applicants and improve both the quality and quantity of supply.
  I welcome the Bill's emphasis on improving the professionalism and skills of our teachers. There are still challenges to be faced in the profession and the education system as a whole, but I hope that teachers will recognise the Bill as clear evidence that we now have a Government who recognise and want to promote teachers' professionalism and skills. That can only be good for teachers, children and the education system as a whole.
  6.22 pm
  Mr. Phil Willis: It is with considerable pleasure that I address the House on the Second Reading of this Bill. It is a pleasure because, as the Liberal Democrat higher education spokesman, this is the first time that I have led for my party from the Front Bench. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Sadly, my pleasure—and that of hon. Members on both sides of the House—is tempered by the knowledge that I shall recommend that Liberal Democrats vote against the Conservatives' reasoned amendment and the Bill, which is disappointing.
  The Bill should have been one behind which the whole House could unite. A general teaching council, the restoration of a probationary period for newly qualified teachers, a new inspection regime for teacher training establishments, and the introduction of a professional qualification for heads showed that the Government were intent on raising the quality and esteem of the teaching profession after 18 years of constant attacks on it.
  In part III, the proposal to give 16 and 17-year-olds for whom school may have been a less than rewarding experience the right to time off for training showed again that the Government were listening and that they recognised the need to create a genuinely inclusive society. We must not allow failure at school to be an excuse for failure for the rest of people's lives.
  The Bill was also expected to herald a new era for higher education. The problems of underfunding, coupled with the need to expand access, especially to those from
  994
  poorer backgrounds, were to be addressed. Alas, the whole House must be disappointed with many parts of the Bill, even as amended in the other place. Perhaps some would not go as far as Lord Glenamara, who, when addressing their lordships in another place, said:
  "I have been in Parliament for 47 years and this is probably the worst Bill I have ever seen during those years not only in the way it is drawn up but in what it proposes."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 February 1998; Vol. 586, c. 414.]
  The Secretary of State can take little comfort from a Bill that has been universally criticised.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) is hoping to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to expand on our concerns about the Government's proposals for a GTC. However, the proposals are an insult to the teaching profession and show that the Government, like their predecessors, simply do not trust the profession to regulate itself. If an attempt is made in Committee to draw back from the amendments that were made in the other place, we shall know for sure that the gesture to introduce a GTC is hollow.
  If it is acceptable for lawyers, doctors or dentists to regulate themselves, but not for teachers, the Bill is hollow in every sense. The Secretary of State retains powers over the GTC which, if suggested to the Law Society or the General Medical Council, would cause outrage. The original proposal was to limit the GTC to merely issuing registration cards—a sort of supermarket loyalty card—but, unlike a Sainsbury's card, teachers would be obliged to pay for it and would receive few benefits.
  Clause 12 and the requirement for new head teachers to have undergone training for the new head teacher qualification is most welcome, provided that the cost of such training falls on the DFEE.
  I was fortunate to be appointed head of two different schools during my 20 years in headship. On neither occasion was training either a requirement or even suggested at appointment. I remember being asked by one interviewer, for my appointment in Leeds, "Do you like caning?" not, "Do you need any training?" It seems that, in the past, heads acquired their skills by a process of metamorphosis.
  Even with the huge changes introduced by the previous Government following the Education Reform Act 1988, training was an optional extra for heads rather than a requirement. In 1988, my school budget was £34,000, largely to pay for equipment and consumables. A year later, my budget rose to £3.4 million, and I had responsibility for everything from playing fields to staff contracts. Training consisted of an optional morning at the teacher centre.
  The Government are right to insist on training future heads to a high standard, but they must make adequate provision for existing heads to be given access to the same level and quality of training. To do so would enable governing bodies and the Office for Standards in Education to offer real support to existing heads who may need it.
  It is part II which is largely unacceptable to the Liberal Democrats. Sadly, the proposals of the Leader of the Opposition and his hon. Friends offer no relief.
  That higher education is in crisis is beyond question. The Dearing committee was set up to do three principal things: to resolve the huge funding crisis in higher

  995
  education caused by the 40 per cent. per student cut in resources over the past 20 years; to resolve the issue of access, particularly for students from largely under-represented groups; and to create a vision for higher education into the next millennium, and its place in a lifelong learning society.
  Lord Dearing deserves the congratulations of the House on the work that he and his committee did in examining the future needs of higher education. His elevation to their noble lordships House is well deserved and will give a further boost to quality debate on many topics, not least the future of our education system.
  The report may not have resolved all the issues. Indeed, it was never intended to proffer a single solution, but it was an excellent basis for consultation and debate. Many of its 93 recommendations have been welcomed and accepted, most notably the new institute for teaching and learning, but the Government's hasty and ill-considered response on 23 July 1997 was discourteous, to say the least.
  It is the proposal to introduce tuition fees for which the report will be remembered, and for which this sad Bill will be condemned. Since 23 July, it has been downhill all the way. The gap year fiasco was followed by the partial retreat on the Scottish university question. We now have the prospect of universities chasing around Europe examining the residual incomes of Spanish wine makers and Sicilian bankers. PGCE students will be exempt from paying fees for their final year if they teach in schools, but they will have to pay if they want to teach in further education. Students will be thrown off courses if they do not pay their fees up front after the first year. Universities, such as the university of Central England, in Birmingham, will offer to pay fees for certain courses to attract students. University places will be offered through bucket shops and will be advertised on teletext with other cut-price offers.
  The Liberal Democrats are fundamentally opposed to the introduction of tuition fees for full-time undergraduates. Furthermore, we believe that the principle of free tuition should be extended to all part-time undergraduates, who should also have access to maintenance support through income-contingent loans.
  Although our position may not be supported by the Government or by the Tories, it has been clear and consistent throughout. We realise that the 40 per cent. cut in student funding cannot be reversed in its entirety. We also accept that difficult decisions on funding must be taken if higher education is to be expanded, if quality is to be maintained and improved, if students from poorer backgrounds are to be encouraged and if part-time students are to be provided with a better deal.
  Students will have to make a larger contribution, but so should the two other beneficiaries: industry and the state. It is unacceptable for the Government and the Conservative party to claim that students are the only people who should pay extra, because they are the main beneficiaries. Everyone benefits from a well-educated society.
  We support the Government's proposal to end maintenance grants and replace them with income-contingent loans as the fairest way of securing a greater contribution from students. We applaud the Government's decision to support our proposals for a fair income-contingent loan system. However, if we are to
  996
  tackle student poverty, we must increase the level of loan by at least 20 per cent. At the moment, far too many students are in poverty and are having to divert from their studies to obtain extra income.
  We also applaud the Secretary of State's attempts to persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to change the way in which the Government account for the student loan portfolio. If other European Union countries can do that within the rules, so could we. The removal of grants, courageously supported by the National Union of Students, would release approximately £1 billion more into higher education by 2000. However, the NUS, the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, individual vice-chancellors, Lord Dearing and, I suspect, the majority of hon. Members would support the imposition of a greater burden on students, be it by the removal of grant or by the imposition of tuition fees, only if the resources raised were ring-fenced and ploughed back into higher education. That could be the only justification for the Government's position and for the view held by the official Opposition.
  Lord Dearing made it absolutely clear in his report that his proposal for the introduction of tuition fees was to resolve the funding crisis in higher education, and not to resolve the crisis in further education or in the Government's programme in other areas. The Government have constantly referred to the CVCP for support on tuition fees. Its information for members dated 18 August 1997 said:
  "It would be indefensible to require present and future generations of students to contribute, if there was no direct improvement in the funding position of higher education. Any sums generated by the Government's proposal, even in the short-term, must therefore be reinvested in higher education."
  That was the basis on which support for the proposals was given.
  The Government's proposal is an insult to Lord Dearing, disingenuous to our universities, a betrayal of our students and dishonest to the electorate, for the reasons given by the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell).
  Mr. Edward Davey: Is my hon. Friend aware that the new vice-chancellor of Kingston university, who has a distinguished career in higher education and is a long-standing supporter of the Labour party, has recently stated his forthright opposition to the proposals for tuition fees? Does my hon. Friend agree that, with students and professionals opposed to tuition fees, it is time that the Government saw the light, withdrew the proposals urgently, and introduced measures based on fairness and the right to free education?
  Mr. Willis: I agree with my hon. Friend. Vice-chancellors were lulled into a false sense of security. They thought that money would accrue to them as a result of the introduction of tuition fees, which is why they gave their support. They are now saying, "Listen, we are not getting these fees and we are not being allowed to charge top-up fees. We'll have to cater for more students coming into our universities with ever-decreasing resources." The proposals are clearly unacceptable.
  If the Government believe that charging students a fee for tuition costs is necessary to preserve the quality of higher education and allow for expansion, why are they

  997
  not ring-fencing those resources and giving them to our universities? The Department for Education and Employment said in a memo that
  "the issue is sensitive because the £165 million package for 1998–99 does not allow universities to keep all the funds raised by the new £1,000 fees as extra income."
  The Government's fine words will not be borne out in practice.
  If the Government believe that by means-testing tuition fees they are supporting poor students, why stop at £1,000? I admire the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), and was interested in what he said when he was the Minister responsible for higher education in a previous Conservative Government before he was sacked. He has been consistent. Why not means-test the whole fee and show moral integrity in the redistribution of resources, to help poorer students?
  Hon. Members should be aware that, if the measure is agreed—despite the supposed safeguards of votes in both Houses—this is the thin end of the wedge for a student-funded higher education system. As in Australia, once the taboo of charging fees has been overcome, it will be allowed to rip. This year, six universities in Australia are charging £8,000 for tuition fees. The original proposal was for students to be charged 20 per cent. of average costs, but now six universities charge 100 per cent. The Australians are revisiting the issue, and have established a Dearing-like commission to consider funding.
  At least we now know that the Government's proposal to charge students has nothing to do with raising standards, improving access or increasing the number of places. It is a means of releasing resources for other parts of the education system, although there is no guarantee that the Chancellor will not use the new tax for other purposes. It is ironic that Sir Keith Joseph could not persuade a right-wing Thatcher Government to agree to these proposals in 1984, whereas 15 years later the new Labour Government relish introducing them in their first year of office.
  We should not take pious lectures from the Leader of the Opposition in his amendment. The present crisis in higher education is down to the Tory cuts of the past 20 years. The reason why so many students from poorer homes have been denied access to our universities is the Tories' crude cap on provision since 1992, the ever deplorable state of our schools and the fact that so many children have not been able to raise their horizon to a level at which they might be pointed towards university.
  If one ever wanted an example of policy opportunism and policy gymnastics, one should read today's speech by the right hon. Member for Charnwood. Which Government cut maintenance grants by 50 per cent. in 1992, when they introduced short-term mortgage-type loans? Which Government further reduced the grant by 10 per cent. in 1994, and by 8 per cent. in 1995? Which Government wanted maintenance grants to "wither on the vine", to be replaced by loans covering 100 per cent. of maintenance costs? Which Government removed housing benefit rights and unemployment benefit rights for students? I think that the House knows the answer to those questions.
  998
  A few months after having been kicked out of office, Conservative Members are posing as the student's friend by offering a passionate defence of student grants. The sheer cheek is appalling.
  Mr. David Willetts: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Willis: Yes; I thought that the hon. Gentleman might like to intervene.
  Mr. Willetts: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Conservative Government established the Dearing inquiry? For us therefore to support the conclusions of an inquiry that we ourselves established seems to be a perfectly reasonable course of action.
  Mr. Willis: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. However, he will know full well that the reason why he and the previous Government were so keen—as were the current Government when in opposition—to establish the Dearing inquiry is that they were petrified of offering the electorate any proposals on student funding. Although we might castigate the present Prime Minister for his statement on 14 April and the present Foreign Secretary for his statement on 24 April, we heard nothing from the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) or the Conservative party about their proposals to fund higher education.
  As I said, the cheek of those in the previous Government is appalling. Although they champion means-tested grants—of 50 per cent., not 100 per cent., as Conservative Members hinted earlier in the debate—they support a flat-rate tuition fee. Moreover, they have failed to say that the tuition fee element will rise annually, even on top of inflation—thereby, after four or five years, placing an even greater burden on poorer students.
  Today, the Liberal Democrats received a call from an insurance company that was interested in our views on how tuition fees will rise. The firm calculated that, within five years, students will be charged £4,000 annually for tuition fees. The Bill is but the thin end of the wedge.
  We have heard too much from the right hon. Member for Charnwood and his colleagues about ring-fencing fees income for our universities. Nevertheless, when there was an opportunity in the other place to defeat the Government on the hypothecation of fees to higher education, the Conservative party showed little enthusiasm to do so. Only 8 per cent. of Tory peers went into the Lobby to defeat the Government on that Division, although they were all ready to support their own amendment in the subsequent Division. That shows the Conservative party's commitment to hypothecation.
  Mr. Willetts: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way a second time. As he is talking about activities in the other place, will he confirm that—because of a direct approach from the Prime Minister to the leader of the Liberal Democrat party—Liberal Democrat peers withdrew their amendment requiring the Bill to be recommitted?
  Mr. Willis: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that that is categorically not true. Clearly, there was a recommitment issue because—as I think he realises—part II of the Bill

  999
  is badly flawed. We desired clarification and additional time for the Bill on the Floor of the other place, which we were given. Subsequently, there was an exceedingly good debate, much of which I attended and heard.
  It will be interesting to discover how the hon. Member for Havant and other Conservative Members vote at the end of today's debate. Moreover, at the end of the debate, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will reply for his colleagues who responded to a letter sent to all Conservative Members by the National Union of Students, asking for their position on tuition fees.
  In a letter to Douglas Trainer, president of the NUS, the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) wrote:
  "I have opposed the introduction of tuition fees ever since I have been an MP."
  In reply to student union officers, the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) wrote:
  "I have always—under the previous Government as well as this one—opposed the imposition of charges for tuition."
  In a letter to student union officers, the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) wrote:
  "I think it is extremely sad that…the Government is not making our state education system free at the point of delivery to all."
  The hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce)—who is often in the Chamber—wrote:
  "We must be fearful that the Government might make all students…pay the whole of their tuition fees."

  In a letter to his student union officers, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) wrote:
  "I have always opposed the introduction of tuition fees and will continue to do so."
  It will be interesting to discover at the end of the debate whether the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford and his colleagues vote against their own amendment.
  I should like also to mention the plight of part-time students studying for higher education qualifications. Currently, they receive little or no maintenance and must contribute towards their tuition fees. In 1996–97, 234,300 of the 384,600 part-time undergraduate students—60 per cent. of them—received no financial support for fees. Moreover, few of them received support towards paying their maintenance costs. We accept that the Government have made provision in the Bill to rectify that, and realise that Baroness Blackstone made it clear that the Government were sympathetic to the problems of part-time students. We acknowledge also the additional £46 million of help in access funds, which was mentioned by the Minister. However, sympathy is not enough.
  The Government have to make a firm commitment, and realise that their goal of enabling half a million more students to undertake studies—which the Prime Minister mentioned at the Labour party conference, and was echoed in the "Learning Age" Green Paper—will be realised only by increasing the number of part-time students. To increase that number without providing significant support for tuition or maintenance would be a contradiction in terms. A recent study by London Economics stated that a modest support package offering loans of £500 annually for students earning less than £10,000 would cost 0.5 per cent. extra in the higher education budget.
  The Bill is seriously flawed. It is full of good intentions, but so was the pathway to hell. I hope that, even at this late stage, the Government will repent and find salvation.
  6.47 pm
  Dr. Lynne Jones: We have heard a variety of views expressed in this debate, which has exposed differences both between and within parties. However, I think that there is complete agreement on both sides of the House on at least two issues. The first is that we must improve access to higher education for young people from working-class families. The second is that we must improve funding of our university system, which—as hon. Members have already said in the debate—has not received funds to match expanding student numbers. Current funding per student is less than 60 per cent. of what it was 20 years ago.
  As we all agree on those objectives, surely we must be able to examine objectively how to achieve them. Moreover, answering the question of how to accomplish those aims was the purpose of the Dearing commission, which was established with all-party backing.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State graphically drew attention to the lack of educational opportunity afforded to people from working-class and poorer backgrounds, particularly in certain parts of the country. He listed constituencies in which only 2 or 3 per cent. of young people from unskilled backgrounds benefit from higher education. If we are to improve those figures—and everyone agrees that we should—in the interests of not only the young people themselves, but the nation's economic benefit, we must establish the reasons for that poor performance.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that a major problem is that many young people from lower socio-economic groups do not achieve the sufficient qualifications to enable them to go to university. The Government are right to tackle that through setting higher standards in schools. However, even when young people have the necessary qualifications to go to university, a smaller proportion of those from poorer backgrounds take the opportunity to do so.
  Everyone was expecting Dearing to propose replacing grants with loans in order to put additional resources into higher education. Indeed, that was Labour policy and the basis of our submission to the Dearing inquiry. It was also the policy of the National Union of Students. I do not know which came first—whether we adopted the policy from the NUS or vice versa—although a number of students prominent in the NUS have subsequently become Labour Members.
  The students in the NUS who took the decision that it would be responsible to abandon maintenance grants in favour of loans were, by definition, from backgrounds that meant that they did not receive maintenance grants. Some three quarters of students at the older universities come from more affluent backgrounds and it is they who decided to remove the maintenance grants from poorer students. That was the policy before the election.
  Labour promised to listen to Dearing, so it was a surprise when the report said that the inquiry had considered that option, but felt that such a decision would be tantamount to taking resources from the poorest students or potential students and giving them to the better-off. For that reason, it made different recommendations. At about the same time as Dearing reported, a report on class and higher education was produced by the Policy Studies Institute and published by the Council for Industry and Higher Education. It reached

  1001
  exactly the same conclusion as Dearing and said that, if we were to improve the participation in higher education of people from lower socio-economic groups, we would have to address the difference between the income that young people would expect if they were working and what they would receive while undertaking a course of higher education. Sadly, that is not what we are doing.
  If we do not address that problem, we may be able to improve take-up by improving qualifications, but young people from working-class backgrounds, even those with reasonable qualifications, will remain under pressure to start earning. That was my experience as a young person being brought up on a council estate. It remains a problem even under the Government's proposals, and, for that reason, I shall not be able to support the Government tonight. As somebody who benefited from free tuition and a full maintenance grant, I cannot vote to deprive younger generations of something that was very important to me. We may say that the policy has not been successful in getting more young people from working-class backgrounds into higher education, but it was helpful to a large number of people, including me.
  There is also agreement on the need to get more funding into higher education. Dearing recommended that, in the forthcoming financial year, an additional £350 million should be put into universities and, in the following year, the figure should be £565 million. He proposed that, over the next 20 years, at least an additional £3.3 billion should go into higher education. However, the measures proposed by the Government will raise nothing like that level of resources.
  According to figures from the Department for Education and Employment, significant funds will not be raised until 1999–2000, when the figure will be something like £100 million. It does not rise to £1 billion until 2015–16. To be fair, those figures are based on current accountancy procedures, and Dearing recommended a change in the way in which loans are accounted for in the public finances. He proposed moving to resource accounting. The last time we debated the matter, it was unclear whether the Government would accept that recommendation. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on getting the Treasury to adopt that policy. It is extremely important for higher education and other areas of public investment. It is nonsense to treat spending for investment in the same way as spending for consumption, just as it is nonsense to treat loans that are expected to be repaid in the same way as grants.
  Even if we move to resource accounting by 2001, as proposed, we still will not raise the money that the universities need; the Government have to address that. It has been announced that an extra £160 million will be provided for higher education next year, but that will be provided largely by the mechanism of paying loans quarterly rather than a year in advance. We still do not know where the Government will get the money to finance higher education. So the proposed solution will not address the funding crisis in our universities. At the end of the day, if we are to provide quality higher education that is accessible to all those with the potential to benefit from it, it will have to be paid for by the taxpayer.
  1002
  I share the concerns expressed by the Liberal Democrats that the introduction of fees could well be the thin end of the wedge in our attempts to put the necessary resources into higher education. Personally, I should like to retain the principle of free education. We know that many affluent people benefit from higher education and that students from affluent backgrounds, unlike those from poorer backgrounds, will not leave university saddled with loans of £10,000. Their parents will have the means to ensure that they do not start their working life in debt. Many middle-class people have been to university or have children who are attending—or are likely to attend—university. What is wrong with returning to the principle of a progressive taxation system that pays for the welfare state?
  I do not accept the argument, which grew over the Thatcher years, that we cannot afford the welfare state. We are a far richer country than we were when the welfare state was established. Productivity has increased and our national wealth has grown. If we do not pay through taxation, we have to pay by some other means.
  Mr. Richard Allan: I sympathise with the hon. Lady's comments about progressive taxation. Does she agree that it would have the added advantage of taxing graduates on what they earn, rather than on what their parents earn? Many graduates go on to worthy, but lower-paid professions. It is right for people to be taxed on what they earn, not on their parents' income.
  Dr. Jones: I agree. If we had a higher tax rate for high earners, we could easily fund higher education. Many higher earners have benefited from a university education or want that opportunity to be available to their children. I have two children. I hope that they will go to university. I shall have to pay a lot of money to help them. What is wrong with me paying a bit extra in taxation? It is probably cheaper for me to pay higher taxes than to have to pay the huge sums necessary to put students through university.
  That principle also applies to other aspects of the welfare state. Nobody is arguing that rich people should have to pay to send their children to school or that they should not be able to benefit from the health service. That route leads to second-class services for the poor.
  We are a wealthy country. We want to spend more on health and education. We are being deprived of the opportunity to do so by the unwillingness of successive Governments to allow us to pay more through the tax system. As a result, people will end up paying privately and will not get as good a deal as they would through public provision. Far from not being able to afford the welfare state, we cannot afford not to have it—and that includes higher education.
  7.2 pm
  Mr. Tim Boswell: I find myself more in sympathy with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) than I have been on some previous occasions. The debate has been characterised by commitment to, and passion about, higher education. There are different analyses on how to deal with the situation. I shall have no difficulty in supporting the Conservative reasoned amendment.

  1003
  I had 30 months of experience as the Minister responsible for further and higher education in the previous Government. That gave me great affection for students and the institutions in which they study, as well as a considerable knowledge of the difficulties of tackling the intractable problems of funding.
  I do not wish to suggest that the other aspects of the Bill are not important. I welcome the provisions for a general teaching council. Anything that raises professional standards is important. The concerns that have been expressed tonight have not been about the concept of the council, but about whether it will have enough teeth and enough to do. My daughter is due to be one of the first registered teachers under the system, because she has recently joined the profession. After all the hassle of setting up a registration system, merely producing advice for the Secretary of State, however well conceived or important that advice may be, will not give the body enough of a job.
  If the Government do not want to keep the provisions at the start of clause 2, I hope that they will at least reflect on what has been said tonight and perhaps consider using their powers under clause 6 to reinsert measures on professional standards that the council can properly handle.
  Proposals for a teacher training curriculum have recently been put forward. The Bill also has inspection powers. Those are welcome measures in principle. However, not for the first time with this Government—I hope that hon. Members are not surprised—some of the provisions are too restrictive and a little old-fashioned. I shall write to Minister about the representations that have been made to me about theatre studies. Those doing PGCEs will find it difficult to get training to a level necessary to deliver A-level courses in that important subject, in which we have a good deal of national strength, because the provisions are too narrow. I hope that Ministers will think about that.
  The Minister responsible for lifelong learning would be surprised if I did not comment on clauses 26 and 27. Most of us would welcome any feasible means to help more people, particularly those who missed out during their 11 years of statutory education, to improve their basic skills and their employability—a word which did not come first from the current Government; I was fond of using it, too. Like the Minister, I assert passionately the principle of involving those at all levels of ability and attainment in continuing education. I have a strong commitment to adult literacy.
  It is characteristic of our debates on higher education that we have not keyed in the further education interface enough. I note that the Minister is nodding. There are anomalies and differences in funding, to which some hon. Members and the Dearing report referred. They will need revisiting, although perhaps not in the Bill.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) cautioned Ministers against putting too much into the provisions. There is a danger that if young people offer themselves for employment without basic skills, but with the potential to claim the employee rights to get those skills paid for by the taxpayer, employers may find it more attractive to look elsewhere for someone to take on. Someone on the new deal can have a gateway interview and three months of basic skills training, with protected, subsidised employment thereafter. The Government may
  1004
  need to consider inducements for employers to be involved. I have great regard for the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service and tribunals, but there are dangers if they have to assert such employee rights—although nobody wants to remove the important opportunities to gain educational skills at work or through external providers.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood made a trenchant analysis of the higher education elements of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), who also had responsibilities for legislating on higher education under the previous Administration, made some extremely perceptive, long-term strategic comments. I shall build on some of them and add some from my own experience.
  My first point is a slight gloss on the remarks made by my hon. Friend—indeed, even a measure of criticism or denial of them. We should recognise that, in the process of evolution of the higher education system into a mass system that took place under the previous Administration, there was an inevitable widening of participation. That was partly in ability. If one is taking 30 per cent. of the cohort of young people, one is clearly taking different levels of attainment in relation to, for example, GCSE grades than one would be if one took the 5 per cent. of people at the top of the pile.
  The same is true in social terms. In an intervention on the Secretary of State, I adverted to figures from the early 1990s, which showed a majority participation of C2, D and E socio-economic groups. That has marched along with a huge increase in the number of mature and women students. Many such things, which rightly concern hon. Members on both sides of the House, were beginning to shake out under the system.
  My next point, which I shall perhaps make more explicitly than anyone has so far, relates to the justification for a degree of internal financing of the higher education system through those who benefit from it. Some hon. Members have referred to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which we met and with which we talked extensively some of these issues. All the evidence from the studies that I have seen is that, whereas the private rate of return from higher education is exceptionally high, the social rate of return from education expenditure at tertiary level is comparatively low. I should stress immediately that that is an average; some people choose to go into vocational employment and do not command higher rates of salary.
  In other words, if the taxpayer is to spend £1, it is best spent on education at primary level, rather less well spent at secondary level and spent less efficiently still at tertiary level. In case anyone should misread the agenda, the logic of that is not that we should withdraw resources from tertiary education and redistribute them to primary education, but rather that the burden on state funding should go in such a way. It might be necessary to supplement and reinforce the tertiary level with a degree of personal funding.
  Mr. Lansley: I am interested in my hon. Friend's point. In the studies that he has seen, is it true that the social rate of return from investment in tertiary education

  1005
  diminishes as the extent of participation grows, or is it more or less a straight line in relation to the size of the higher education sector as a whole?
  Mr. Boswell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for asking that question, although I am not sure whether my knowledge or sophistication would enable me to give him a definitive answer. He may be driving at the fact—we must always be conscious of it as a danger—that higher education is an act of consumption, an activity for young persons, as well as an act of investment for the future. We need to ensure that quality is delivered in the system. I shall comment on that later.
  Given a wish to widen participation, a wish to concentrate on what was essential in public spending terms and a wish—perhaps—to try to involve some internal finance, Ministers, certainly from the early 1990s, were engaged on what I described as a slow bicycle race to see who was the first to commit themselves to a funding change. That involved parties as well; we were all going around trying not to do the deed. As—almost—ever, we enlisted Lord Dearing as the ringmaster to enable us to decide how to do it.
  I should say—I see the Minister chuckling—that, had the previous Government done the deed ahead of the general election, I have a feeling that, even though I may be a genial fellow, the six Labour Members who were formerly presidents of the National Union of Students would have contrived their troops to form a quadrille five times around Sanctuary Buildings, and as near to the Palace of Westminster as possible, to scream abuse at me. It is interesting that that constituency seems to have been nobbled—certainly the ex-presidents are conspicuously absent in this debate.
  I do not want to rub in the fact, but it is interesting that, as a party and a Government over those 18 years, we made the higher education system available to the masses. Under the Tories, and on a grant system, the number of people in higher education went from one in eight—or one in 12.5 in the days when the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) and I were at university—to one in three. We did that, albeit with the change to student loans. Indeed, the rate rather accelerated during that change.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage perceptively commented, one of the reasons for that was the switch to a fees system, which, for the first time, gave institutions a real incentive to take additional numbers. I would always remind the House that such a change was not solely an act of government. The 1990 White Paper set expansion at a third by the turn of the century, but it took place in two years under the pressure of the switch to the fees policy and additional students taken on at the margins by institutions.
  I come to the present situation and the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood. Whatever else one can say charitably about the Government, one cannot say that the implementation of their response to Dearing has been perfect. It has been very far short of that. My right hon. Friend referred to the gap-year fiasco. I refer to Scotland, not least because one of the members of my family has a strong interest in judicial review. I envisage litigation from English students in Scotland. Should they prevail, I then envisage litigation from fourth-year students throughout the United Kingdom about the differential treatment in Scotland.
  1006
  I should mention two other matters to add to the list of differential treatment. One is the treatment of art students on their foundation course. It will be a condition of their entry to higher education that they should embark on a foundation year. As the Minister has rightly said in correspondence, such a year does not constitute higher education. It is pre-higher education. Such students will find themselves disadvantaged against those who are in the gap-year provision.
  The other matter is the difficult situation of switching students. A young lady of my acquaintance was admitted to a distinguished university to read psychology. She ended up with four A grade A-levels and decided that she would like to switch to medicine. The Minister's answer to whether she would qualify for free tuition for a 1998 entry was, to put it mildly, ambiguous and will no doubt require a degree of finesse on the part of her tutor and herself. That is the by-product of adopting a system in a hurry without adequate transitional arrangements.
  Rather than raking over that, I should comment on what should happen in future. The system to be devised should meet two tests. The hon. Member for Selly Oak may be surprised that I shall put it so bluntly, but I mean what I say about the first test. Is the system socially regressive? Clearly, if it does not pick up able students—who would be well qualified—and does not enable them to go through the education system with a degree or some subsequent qualification, that would be a national waste as well as a tragedy for the individual.
  Secondly, we should ask whether the system selected contributes to quality. If it leads to some dilution of quality, it is likely to lead to a waste of Government resources. I think that such a concern was embedded in the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley).
  It is incontestable that the Government's proposals will make things more difficult for students on full maintenance grant—roughly a quarter of all students. Currently, they receive £1,755 a year and pay no fees; in future, although they will not have to pay fees, they will receive no grant. The burden of maintenance, particularly in London, is difficult for many students. Despite the changes that we made, a three-year course is likely to leave students with a debt of £10,000—double the current conceivable debt of £5,000—and Lord Dearing's proposals would have hit such vulnerable students less hard.
  Who are those poor students? I do not blame the Secretary of State for quoting from the Dispatch Box my remark, made when I held ministerial responsibility, that there was no evidence of widespread student hardship. I said then, and say again, that, statistically, it is difficult to show widespread student hardship from triennial studies. There has been a gradual growth in loans or borrowings off-balance sheet—those outside the student loan entitlement. There is little evidence of a widespread increase or a change in the drop-out rate: despite expansion, the system has functioned reasonably stably.
  That masks a number of difficulties and strains, however; above all, it masks the fact that people may not apply to attend university, which is distressing. Although I may not be able to substantiate it precisely, I suggest that statistical poverty was not so much a matter of income deficiency as of lack of support. That often applies to mature students: unless their partner works to support

  1007
  them, they may experience severe problems. For example, their parents may not be able to support them, they may have family responsibilities, or family relationships may have broken down. Such people may feel the pinch the most. Hardship may be caused by something as simple and banal as no one in the family being able to lend them a car for the odd weekend, having no one to do their washing or having no one to make them a decent protein-based meal once a fortnight.
  Students who suffer from a lack of support enjoyed under the previous arrangements—two parents, a grant, a definite place to stay for a finite period—may suffer most as the system diversifies. I hope that the arrangements the Government decide on will reflect those anxieties.
  I am also anxious about quality in higher education. Although they are not formally hypothecating it, the Government have introduced a quasi fee, which operates as a tax, particularly as it is graduated. In spite of what the Secretary of State said, there can be no guarantee of no further tax increase. He spoke of a lock, but it must be judged against the fact that a Chancellor bent on doing so could cut off other channels of funding, in which case institutions and students would have to make the free, but unappealing choice offered by the highwayman: "Your money or your life." The lock would have to be raised to prevent the institutions from collapsing.
  What is wrong is that we are looking at the fee—the student's contribution—in terms of its position in the spectrum of payment. It will sit at the end of the system, and will be creamed off. In the longer term, we should undertake a controlled experiment, and empower students along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage. Instead of an institution receiving block support for teaching—I leave aside the complicated and controversial issue of research—the block grant should be disseminated to students. It would be for them to spend their fees as part of a shift towards their being treated as the customer. That would empower them and give them a direct job as monitors of quality. It would be up to them to secure value for money, which would put a new perspective on the issue of top-up fees: the institutions would get back their autonomy and be able to reduce or to increase fees, and be able to meet their market requirement.
  That is blue-sky stuff, but an ex-Minister can occasionally indulge in such speculation. It would, however, have another advantage, especially for institutions: we could hack through the thicket that might loosely be called the quality industry, where institutions are busy assessing their own quality and setting their own teaching standards. Such assessments are highly subjective and time consuming. I am not terribly convinced about their worth—most of us who know anything about the system have had little words whispered to us about people being coached on how to conduct their tutorial before the inspectors arrived, but a system whereby students were empowered and could withhold funds if the job was not being done to their satisfaction might be powerful.
  I would impose two important restrictions on such a system, the first of which would be a threshold of quality. Just as legislation safeguards what a degree means, so there should be a process of inspection to prevent the setting up of higher education institutions, let alone
  1008
  institutions offering franchise courses, that cannot deliver anything that is recognisably up to standard. Such consumer protection is important.
  Secondly, such a system should be linked to a proper examination of student support, particularly for disadvantaged students. Access funds are fine, and I am glad that the Government have doubled them, but the exercise could have been carried out statistically by lopping off Higher Education Funding Council money. Such funds should be put in the hands of institutions or, ideally, in the hands of students.
  If that system were adopted, and if institutions felt freer to set their own fees, we could encourage, for example, the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals to produce a code of practice whereby institutions could be shown explicitly to have complied with good practices for securing access for less advantaged students. My hon. Friend the Member for Wantage spoke along similar lines, and we should reflect on conducting controlled experiments, and on opening up that system.
  The Bill has good features, but policy is being rushed through, and that will be regretted afterwards. I have put down markers for evolution. I hope that higher education's development will not simply involve expansion at all costs or spending more public money, but will follow the example of the BBC and include the re-establishment of greater autonomy and more independent funding than institutions have enjoyed in recent years.
  I should like measured change or evolution to targeting and to empowering students to be considered so that they can contribute to the life of their institutions, and so that greater strength can be given those institutions. Universities and their students are a great national asset, and we must find ways to enable them to do their best for themselves and for the country.
  7.28 pm
  Mr. Gordon Marsden: This ambitious and wide-ranging Bill demonstrates the Government's holistic commitment to educational reform and to improving standards and opportunities on every rung of the ladder. It contains a range of provisions relating to the teaching profession, further and higher education and young people in work.
  The provisions for the teaching profession must be seen in tandem with the principles of the Schools Standards and Framework Bill. I was privileged to be a member of the Standing Committee on that Bill, and the provisions of the Teaching and Higher Education Bill develop many of the ideas and the philosophy underpinning that Bill. In particular, the creation of a general teaching council will back teachers and will develop the esteem and professionalism of the teaching profession, which people such as the chief education officer of Birmingham, Tim Brighouse, have referred to as so important.
  The provision for a mandatory professional qualification for head teachers—a matter on which the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) spoke eloquently in Committee—represents an important step forward. In providing an induction year for teachers, the Bill gives the structured support and sense of confidence and guidance which—remembering the baptism by fire that we gave to many teachers in their first year—will be welcome.

  1009
  The Bill provides a general settlement for further and higher education, and has been accepted as such by the CVCP and the AUT. We came to the Bill living in the world as it is and not as we would wish it. We are presenting a structured policy and approach to higher and further education, which contrasts with the drift, hesitations, second thoughts and—too often, at times—dogma that the previous Government brought to the subject.
  The Bill accepts necessary contributions from students as the most equitable way of increasing resources, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State underlined that this afternoon. We have taken this position because of the woeful underfunding of higher education by the previous Government. Public funding of students has decreased by 25 per cent. since 1989. I exempt certain Conservative Members—notably the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson)—but the perception of students held by many members of the previous Government was of a rather curious left-wing group with whom they did not wish to discuss funding.
  The biggest weakness of the previous Government's approach was their obsessive belief in the market, which led to many of the fiascos and shortcomings in the development of the student loan finance scheme. I spent the late 1980s and the period until the general election last year as editor of a history magazine, History Today, and I had a lot to do with academics in the universities—particularly the polytechnics which were converting to the new universities. I saw their constant frustration and bewilderment at the way in which this big bang in education standards was taking place with no thorough policy.
  The problems included tuition of undergraduates by other undergraduates, lectures and seminars with 30 or 40 students and a paper chase for foreign students for funding purposes. That is the situation we have inherited. The new system of tuition fees will be equitable. One third of students will not pay a fee. A third will pay only a proportion, and a third will pay the full amount—25 per cent., on average, of course costs. That is in line with the current contributions that many postgraduate and part-time students have to make.
  We are developing increased maintenance loans, and the support loan repayments after graduation will be related to income—unlike the current mortgage-type repayments over five years. The £10,000 threshold for repayments is important because of the longer period of repayment. On average, a graduate earning £17,000 a year will pay back something like £52 a month, and not £129 as under the present system.
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State underlined, the Bill proposes a number of guarantees and limitations to address many of the legitimate concerns of the educational world. I welcome his suggestion that we should build on the safeguard of an affirmative resolution from both Houses to lock in the tuition fee increases so that they do not become a convenient source of income for any future Chancellor of the Exchequer. We do not want to penalise, frustrate or lay aside the legitimate concerns of students from whatever class of society. We must make clear that we need a funding basis for further and higher education that will be sound and sustainable.
  1010
  We made clear in our manifesto that we would replace grants with subsidised loans. We did that, as the hon. Member for Wantage said, because all the evidence is that, over a 25-year period from the early 1960s, the increase in the number of students coming from manual and semi-skilled professional backgrounds was very small compared with the increase from middle-class occupations. The availability of places and, more important, the sense of expectation and self-worth are holding back students from those backgrounds. The holistic approach to improving standards is important, so that the tertiary level can benefit students from working-class backgrounds.
  In examining the Bill and tabling amendments, the noble Lords seemed to have had a sense of collective amnesia. The other place is often referred to as conclusive evidence of life after death. In this instance, it was conclusive evidence of a collection of Rip Van Winkles, who snoozed from some golden age of the 1960s and woke up early in 1998 without seeing the background or context to our proposals.
  The Lords' amendment proposing that the maintenance grant element be retained is not workable in terms of the Bill or the Dearing proposals. It is sheer hypocrisy for Conservative Members to support it when in term after term, year after year, they cynically declined, as with pensions, to maintain the value of the grant. They then replaced it with a loan system which proved to be inefficient and incompetent in its operation. That is why the CVCP and the AUT have supported the new income contingent loans which the Government have proposed.
  Mr. Boswell: The hon. Gentleman may recall that the total grant and loan package in the 1990s was indexed for inflation.
  Mr. Marsden: That may well be the case, and it may have been an honourable and positive response, but it did not address the total fall in income of students during that period or the fall in value of the grant from 1979 onwards. The Lords amendment would cost some £500 million a year. That is money that the Government could otherwise spend on higher education, which is why I hope that the House of Commons will reject it.
  The Bill contains other welcome and positive elements. I mention first the proposals to equalise the granting of discretionary awards. I doubt that any hon. Member will not have received a letter from a parent or student complaining about the lottery of those awards. Again, many of the current problems arise from the inordinate pressures on local education authorities as a result of standard spending assessment funding over the past 10 to 15 years—the failure of the previous Government to deal with that has produced the inequities that we face today. The Local Government Association and the Government will work together to produce a new system, which I look forward to seeing in the framework of the Bill.
  I also welcome the Government's proposal to allow 16 and 17-year-olds in work to pursue approved qualifications to at least NVQ level 2. The right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) did not oppose the proposal, but he raised the old bogey of its being a disincentive to employers. If Conservative Members complain about the proposal, they must say why they believe that training for good-quality jobs can be a disincentive to decent employers.

  1011
  The Bill provides a framework, if not the details, for the next stage of what I believe the Government need to do—they must further deal with the funding arrangements for part-time students. I share the concerns of the CVCP and people in higher education that the Bill does not fully address funding for part-time students. If the Government are to encourage and sustain lifelong learning, it is imperative that increased financial support is made available for all the one third of the 1.6 million part-time students. The Bill is sufficiently flexible to ensure that loans can be extended to part-time students without recourse to further legislation; it will enable the Secretary of State to prescribe in legislation the categories of attendance that will qualify for grants and loans—I hope that he will consider that as public funding permits.
  As we have heard, the Government's accounting procedures have been a stumbling block to levelling up support for part-time students. I support the reasoning behind the Government's reluctance to extend the current system of maintenance loans to part-time students, but the argument does not apply to tuition fee payments, which are the biggest financial barrier to many part timers.
  Like many people, I believe that the Dearing report greatly overestimated the percentage of part-time students whose fees were paid by their employers. That may be the case for law students on a management course, and aspiring account executives may have their business courses paid for by their City firms, but there is no such support for the majority of part-time students, especially those in the Open university, in which I taught for 15 years.
  The Government must support mature students, especially women returning to education after having had a family. The film "Educating Rita" may have been a caricature of OU life and aspirations, in that it portrayed one-to-one tuition—sadly, none of us who have taught in the OU have had that pleasure—but it did not caricature the burning aspiration of many women like Rita to return to education.
  I urge the Government to be flexible and reconsider the means-tested loans scheme for part-time students. OU research has shown that additions to higher education costs in that area would be minimal—some 0.5 per cent. in the short term—so I urge the Secretary of State to have a word with my right hon. Friend the iron Chancellor, so that we can eventually exhibit an iron determination to prevent any section of the population from missing out on the learning age of enablement and improvement that has been so eloquently described.
  We cannot overestimate the switch in attitudes and priorities that the principles of the Bill—and the framework that it represents—spell out. They demonstrate that education is a seamless web; it is not a series of hoops through which the favoured few may jump. I welcome the extra £165 million for higher education and the proposed mechanisms to broaden access, as only by implementing such a strategy can Britain nurture and broaden its competitive outlook.
  I want to make it clear that, regardless of whether we are considering higher, further or any other stage of education, the question is not whether we have either breadth or excellence—we must have both. That is why I believe not only that the extra money that the Bill will enable us to generate will preserve the teaching and research for which we are rightly world famous, but that
  1012
  the packages for access and student loans will benefit all those students who come from disadvantaged and poorer backgrounds.
  The film "How Green was my Valley" was a tale of a determined individual breaking through a harsh system. It was a great film with great actors, but it did not relate the tale of all those people whose valleys were not green and who did not make it under the system. I believe that the Bill will go a long way to remedying many of the problems that we have not been able to address under the existing system.
  As the first member of my family to break through from school to A-level and on to university, I am acutely conscious of the privilege and the obligation to others that that lays on me. We have to ensure that the breakthroughs of the few in the past become the achievements of the many in the future. That is essential to secure a successful, competitive and culturally enriched Britain in the 21st century, which I believe that the Bill will go a long way towards achieving.
  7.46 pm
  Mr. John Randall: The Bill fails fully to reflect the recommendations of the Dearing report, which was published last July. The Prime Minister claims that the Government have accepted Dearing's findings, but the Bill will not implement the report's key recommendations. Instead, the Government are doing the exact opposite of what in opposition they said that they would do about the introduction of tuition fees. Both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary stated unambiguously before the general election that Labour was opposed to the introduction of student tuition fees, but now they are taking the opposite view.
  The six former presidents of the National Union of Students—including four new hon. Members—who, from time to time, grace the Labour Benches, used to oppose student loans, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) remarked, are now conspicuous in their silence on the matter. Perhaps that is why the Labour club at Brunel university in my constituency of Uxbridge has folded—such is the students' enthusiasm for the Government's approach to higher education.
  Of course, the Government have accepted much in the 1,700 pages of the Dearing report, and Conservative Members welcome that. I shall confine my remarks to two of the Bill's consequences—the first relates to Scottish universities, and the second to the ring fencing of income from tuition fees.
  I strongly urge the Government not to overturn the amendments that were made in another place concerning Scottish universities. The Government originally proposed to create the extraordinary situation whereby students living in England, Wales and Northern Ireland would pay £4,000 in tuition fees for a four-year course at a Scottish university, whereas students living in Scotland or elsewhere in the European Union would pay only £3,000. That would not only be unfair to those subjected to such discrimination; it would reduce demand for places in Scottish higher education.
  About 27,000 students attending Scottish universities come from elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Edinburgh and St. Andrews universities alone have 48 per cent. and 45 per cent. respectively of their student bodies made up of non-Scottish UK students.

  1013
  The Committee of Scottish Higher Education Principals warned:
  "Faced with the prospect of paying 33% more in fees in Scotland, English and other students will just simply stay away."
  That is not a theoretical fear: it has been reflected in the practical experience of universities, with declining applications. The current NUS president has warned that that could devastate universities in Scotland. Clearly, that spokesman does not have the usual NUS ambition to become a Labour Member of Parliament.
  Income from tuition fees must be ring-fenced. Last year, Professor Peter Scott of Leeds university wrote:
  "The whole point of the Dearing exercise has been to fill the funding gap in higher education—more than £500 million a year by the year 2000 and rising eventually to £2 billion according to the Committee of Vice-chancellors and Principals. Will charging for tuition fix the problem? Only if the Government allows universities and colleges to keep the extra money."
  The CVCP reiterated the absolute importance of the income being used to invest in the system. The very rationale behind the introduction of tuition fees is that the money may be used to invest in the institution that charges the student. The original argument in the Dearing report is that charging will make students demand more of their institutions.
  Without the safeguard of ring-fencing, the charging of fees becomes nothing more than another form of taxation. Without suitable legislation, students will effectively be taxed for going to university. Even if the bulk of funds raised is reinvested, the presence of any shortfall is unjustified.
  I believe that of the £150 million to be raised the Government have committed only £125 million to reinvestment. The university sector is being short-changed. Who is to say that in future a desperate Chancellor might not turn the screw and make even less available.
  In an article in The Parliamentary Monitor last year, an undergraduate from Hull university, John Preston, said:
  "It is simply not acceptable for the Government to add roughly £1,000 to the bill for higher education without ensuring that we actually receive something for our money. The Education Secretary must pay more attention to Dearing and less to the Treasury if he is to convince students that he is truly on their side."
  The importance of the extra funding for an institution's future development cannot be overstated. At the moment, there are worrying reports about the funding of the School of Slavonic and East European studies at London university. I must declare an interest as a graduate of that school. The funding problems are a serious enough possibility to mean that it could be closed by 2000. There have been redundancies in various departments, including the departments of Hungarian, Russian and Czech, and more are to follow.
  There are fears that some students will not be able to complete their degrees. That loss of specialised teaching is happening at a time when the whole of eastern European is opening up and becoming more economically important. The generation of fee income that is retained in the institution is vital to fund expansion, maintain standards and, in the case of the school of Slavonic and East European studies, to guarantee its very survival. For the Government to ignore that key recommendation of Dearing undermines the credibility of introducing fees in the first place.
  1014
  Without a commitment on ring-fencing, the Government will have wasted an opportunity and the introduction of fees will have been compromised.
  7.53 pm
  Dr. Brian Iddon: There is much to commend in the Bill. Later, I shall concentrate, as many hon. Members have done, on part II, but I do not want to proceed to that before I have commented on the rest of the Bill.
  For a long time, the teaching profession has been demoralised. I welcome the announcement of general teaching councils. It has long been my opinion that the teaching profession deserves a professional organisation to represent its point of view to the Government of the day, just as all other professions, without exception, have had for many years.
  I urge my right hon. Friend to listen carefully to what has been said today. We want a general teaching council with some teeth, and not merely an advisory body. If we do not examine the terms and conditions for the teaching councils, we could well anger the teachers. I hope that Ministers will take that on board in Committee. I understand that Scotland already has a general teaching council.
  I welcome the training of head teachers. As the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) pointed out, they are now running very large businesses and need to be trained accordingly. I also welcome the proposals for teacher training and, especially, the statutory right to day release for 16 and 17-year-olds, which is long overdue.
  I am concerned about part II. I have been in regular correspondence with my right hon. Friend since the Dearing report was published last year, and I must compliment him because, despite all his heavy correspondence on this and other educational issues, he has always had the courtesy to reply in detail to all the points that I have made, and has even arranged meetings with Ministers for me. I thank him and the Ministers for that.
  I went to university in the late 1950s, and I could never understand why it was so difficult to gain entry. I came from a very poor educational background and had no language training. Much to my surprise, when I looked for a university that might accept me, I found that nearly all of them asked for a foreign language as part of their matriculation requirements.
  After much thrashing about, I was lucky, when the university of Hull accepted me. I learned only a few weeks ago that it bent the rules to do so, but I have always been grateful for the opportunity that it afforded me. Someone from my educational and cultural background—I shall say more about that later—would not have gone to university had a full grant not been available. Many hon. Members would have to accept, hand on heart, that that was the case.
  That was a different era, with far fewer students going to university. I could never understand why so few people went to university in those days. I was terribly relieved when, in the 1960s, university attendance doubled overnight and access to universities became much more freely available. The Robbins report was important in that process. The excitement continued into the 1970s, which was the best decade that I ever had as a university lecturer.

  1015
  Not only was I making personal progress in the profession; universities were making progress throughout the world, and British education was recognised in nearly every other country. Towards the end of the 1970s, clouds began to gather on the horizon, and in 1979, with the election of a new Government, those clouds began to pour rain on the universities.
  In 1981, letters requiring drastic cuts went out to all the universities. At that time, I was teaching at the university of Salford and hon. Members may be amazed to know that the Conservative Government cut the finances to my university by a massive 46 per cent. in the following financial year. Salford university was not expected to survive those massive and devastating cuts, so I shall not pay attention to any crocodile tears this evening from the Conservative Opposition, because I have borne the brunt of their policies. I am on my feet to express the anger that people felt in the early 1980s because of the then Conservative Government's hardening of attitude towards the universities, which continued until they were thrown out of office in May last year.
  Ironically, the Conservatives talked about expanding numbers entering universities while not making available the money that would have enabled that to happen. Overnight, all the polytechnics became universities—never mind the quality, feel the width. We wondered why that had happened and some of us felt that it was political. If parents had a son or daughter at university, they might be more inclined to vote Conservative when the general election came. Was that the reason? I do not know, but perhaps an Opposition Member will tell us. The Conservatives did not make the money available and had no intention of doing so had they continued in office.
  Of course, all the polytechnic lecturers wanted to join the university bandwagon. They all wanted the same facilities—the quality of libraries and the sports facilities. They wanted expansion, and much money from the former universities was diverted to bring all the polytechnics up to speed. Sadly, many are not up to speed today. Even worse, the polytechnic bureaucracy descended on the universities, and more and more paper began to flow. Whole forests were devoured in the process. Then central Government believed that, as in the rest of education, the quality of university education should be put under the spotlight—not only teaching but research. University lecturers such as myself had to sit for hours on end, filling in endless forms and attending endless meetings to try to prove that we were good lecturers. All of that loaded a huge bureaucratic burden on to university lecturers.
  The maintenance of buildings ceased, except for emergencies. Under Conservative control, libraries stopped purchasing books and journals. Even loose copies of journals were never bound and as a result were lost on shelves all round the library. The information technology revolution hit the universities, but unfortunately there was no money to provide the IT. My colleagues had to buy their own computers out of their own pockets, because the money was not provided by the then Conservative Government. Tutorial groups and class sizes in general increased and rooms became overcrowded. It was almost like Paris in the 1960s—the Sorbonne riots were developing at that time. There was great anger among the student population. Today, face-to-face contact with a student is a rarity, whereas, a decade ago, I used to know
  1016
  every student by name. It goes without saying that the quality of university education has suffered in that process.
  Laboratory equipment for training students to go into industry and research laboratories became obsolete. At one time, we were training students on expensive equipment that industry had not yet purchased. Our students took the ideas into industry, the equipment was purchased and industry advanced. Today—sad to say—it is the other way around. We are training students on obsolete scientific and engineering equipment—so obsolete in most universities that, when students get out into real industry, they have to be retrained on the new generation of instruments that most universities lack.
  Mr. Don Foster: While I disagree with the hon. Gentleman about polytechnics and their move to university status, I accept the majority of his remarks about the demise of our universities because of the funding crisis that they face. Given that he has spoken so eloquently on those issues, does he agree that it is vital that any measures that we agree in the Bill must ensure that additional resources go to our universities? Therefore, does he agree with the premise that any additional money raised as a result of the Bill should go directly to the universities and be ring-fenced for the purpose? If not, presumably he would accept that the crisis that he has described will continue.
  Dr. Iddon: If the hon. Gentleman listens to the rest of my speech, he will find that I answer his question.
  To continue, science departments have closed and, sadly, continue to close throughout the university system as we speak. This is science engineering technology week—SET 98—and yet, in a country that believes in high technology, we are forcing vital science and engineering departments to close because of a lack of funding.
  Of course, there is a shortage of students and, as hon. Members have said, it is important to put money into nursery, primary and secondary education because, if we do not build the base for students in the early years, we shall not encourage them to go to university later in life. I accuse the previous Conservative Government of expanding the higher education system far too quickly. They refused to provide adequate resources because of a lack of political will. They have left the university system, including the former polytechnics, in the mess with which the Bill is trying deal.
  Our universities are so underfunded that any money raised through tuition fees—this is my answer to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster)—needs, at least in the short if not the long term, to go directly back into the university system. I have tried to point out why that is so necessary. If the money is directed at other parts of education, there will be great anger throughout the university system.
  I understand the Secretary of State's problems, and I understand that he wants also to provide further education with adequate resources. A further education college in my town is crying out for resources. However, it would be fatal to redirect massive resources from the higher education sector to pull the further education sector into the new millennium.
  I came from a small village where we were expected to work on the land. My father was a market gardener, and when my mother suggested that perhaps I should go

  1017
  to university, he was horrified. I was the eldest son and in such families it was the culture for us to follow our fathers. It is not merely poverty that controls whether people go to university, but culture. In some of the council estates that I represent and some of the poorer private-sector areas of my town, a similar culture exists. Somehow, Parliament and society at large must find a way to break through that culture. It is not merely a matter of improving the education system across the board, but of getting through to parents and, in particular, the children who live in such areas, that real benefits will result from proceeding through the education system and achieving degree-level status.
  That is one of my worries about the Bill. I accept the Secretary of State's honesty and integrity in believing that we shall persuade more people from such cultural backgrounds to go into higher and further education. The Secretary of State is right, but I must express my concern.
  Another concern relates to the situation of two young people from such a background leaving university to live together as partners, married or otherwise. They could run up a debt of around £12,000 each. Multiplied by two, that is a massive £24,000 debt for a young couple starting out in life. I accept all that the Secretary of State said about repayment and minimum and maximum trigger points, but I am concerned about such young people who are beginning to buy cars and look for houses to purchase and who have lots of other expensive things to buy. I have asked him about this before, and he has addressed it, but, for the record, I hope that he will do so again this evening. What will happen when such a couple with a potential debt of £24,000 ask a building society for a loan? He has told me before that he has had discussions with the building societies. I think that I know something about what he has discussed with them. I hope that he will set the record straight and tell us what position such people will be in.
  Mr. Blunkett: Fortuitously, I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he requires. The Council of Mortgage Lenders has told us that there is no difficulty in ensuring that the repayment system on the income-related basis that we have outlined will not affect the ability of young people to borrow.
  Dr. Iddon: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply, and pleased to hear it. I congratulate him on it, because I know that he has put much hard work into the matter.
  It has been said already, and I am sure that the Secretary of State will say it again, that applications—I underline that word—for the 1998–99 academic year are holding up. I am pleased about that, but I sincerely hope that they turn into real entries in the next academic year. I am sure that he will monitor that, not only next year but in future years. Concern has been expressed about mature students, whose applications are down by around 19 per cent. for next year. I implore him to continue to monitor the progress of mature students into higher education.
  I have written to the Secretary of State about people aged 50 or over, who hitherto have not been able to take part in the student loans scheme. No one has made that point today, so I felt that I had to. If we mean what we
  1018
  say about lifelong learning, will he please allow the over-50s to take part in university education with the same loan requirements as apply to younger people?
  Mr. Blunkett: Would my hon. Friend like me to help him on that as well, seeing that I am in a helpful mood, although I have not had any supper yet?
  Mr. Don Foster: Neither have I.
  Mr. Blunkett: The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) has not had anything to eat either, which will put in him in a bad mood. In the consultation paper, "The Learning Age", we say that we are minded to extend the facility in relation to the fee to people aged up to 55. There is an issue in relation to the available repayment system, given our desire to cut off repayments at the point of retirement, which is fair and reasonable to everyone, but there is a sensible case in respect of people aged over 50 who still have the chance of gaining from lifelong learning and contributing back into the community.
  Dr. Iddon: I am now really grateful to my right hon. Friend. I may try a few more points on him as I seem to be on the winning side.
  I come from a university with a proud tradition of running sandwich courses: four-year courses with a year out in industry. There are other four-year courses such as language courses where students spend a year in a foreign country. There is a greater thrust now to start four-year courses in universities. In chemistry, for example, we find students come with fewer qualifications to study such a hard subject. Many universities are beginning to run master of chemistry—MChem—courses to bring people up to the right standards for entry into the high-tech industries.
  While my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said that the fees will be reduced by 50 per cent. for students on the fourth year of a sandwich course, the number of such students has been declining. I fear that it will continue to decline as a result of this measure. His civil servants kindly provided me some figures. I have learnt that 100,000 students were studying on sandwich courses in 1996–97. I hope that he will consider those important students before the Bill's passage is concluded.
  Several hon. Members have mentioned the level of the tuition fee. In Australia, the fee was introduced at a certain level but proved to be the thin end of the wedge; the figure is now astronomical. I was pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State took that into consideration and, rather than leaving it to both Houses to make the final determination of the new fee, he will set up an alternative organisation.
  At present, I see no other way of injecting the immediate resources that the higher education system so desperately needs. I shall support the Bill this evening, but with a heavy heart. I summed it up when I told the Secretary of State that my heart tells me to vote against the Bill for the reasons that I have outlined, but my head tells me that he has no alternative. Several hon. Members have suggested that, by raising taxes, or by some other way, we could pump massive resources into higher education. However, if extra resources became available to the Government, some Labour Members would seek to help the elderly, others the national health service. I am

  1019
  afraid that higher education would not be the Government's top priority. It would be high on our agenda, but, sad to say, not the top priority. Therefore, with a heavy heart, I shall support the Bill, but I hope that Ministers will take on board some of my concerns.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. If hon. Members seeking to catch my eye keep their speeches nearer to 10 minutes than 20, it should be possible to satisfy everyone who wants to speak.
  8.17 pm
  Mr. Andrew Welsh: The last remarks of the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) were depressing. The Government's priority of education, education, education seems to have dissipated; it is no longer their priority. I understand his idea of culture and its impact on educational choice. In Scotland, there has always been much greater access to higher education. That should be built on, not destroyed through debt burden.
  I note that, apart from a duty parliamentary private secretary, I am the only Member present who represents a Scottish constituency. I regret that because the Bill is important for the Scottish education system. Understandably, the debate has concentrated on the general teaching council and other proposals that affect England and Wales. That shows the difficulty of shoeing a Scottish measure into what is basically an English and Welsh one.
  I also regret that many of the points raised by hon. Members, while accurate in themselves, have been irrelevant, inappropriate and, in some cases, downright misleading when applied in the Scottish context. I hope that hon. Members will understand that there is a distinct and different Scottish education system which should be dealt with in a distinct and different way. I shall concentrate on the key issues of tuition fees and student loans and their potentially serious and long-term effects on the provision of, and access to, education in Scotland.
  On behalf of the Scottish National party, I place on record our strong opposition to the Government's proposals to abolish maintenance grants and to introduce tuition fees. The SNP has consistently stood against the gradual erosion of state-funded higher education by successive short-sighted Governments. We opposed the freezing of student grants and the abolition of students' right to claim housing benefit under the previous Government. We opposed the principle of student loans and the privatisation of those loans. The SNP believes in the principle that access to further and higher education should be equal for all, according to ability and regardless of any other background factors such as wealth.
  Like many other hon. Members, I benefited from the previous system of grants and I am ashamed that the House is now on the brink of introducing a "pay as you learn" system which will force future generations of students into massive debt and act as a deterrent to higher study. The irony of those proposals is the Government's misuse of the Dearing report to justify their decision to
  1020
  impose tuition fees and abolish grants. Dearing suggested charging fees only because the national committee of inquiry into higher education was told to work
  "within the constraints of the Government's other spending priorities and affordability."
  In other words, Dearing was given the task of finding ways of increasing funding for higher education without spending any more Treasury money.
  It is not surprising that Dearing was forced into recommending tuition fees. However, Dearing did not recommend abolishing grants at all—new Labour simply waited for Dearing to publish his report and then went ahead with their own ideas, regardless. Obviously, the Government are not serious about tackling the funding crisis within higher education, because they refuse to meet Dearing's recommendation of an extra £350 million this year and £565 million next year. The Government's extra funding for higher education will, in fact, be paid for by individual students and their families.
  Quite apart from the Chancellor's election war chest, there is money available that could be spent on higher education if it really were the top priority—clearly it is not. The Scottish Labour party conference recently voted against Trident—yet again—yet every year Britain spends £1.5 billion on its nuclear capacity, money which the SNP believes would be far better spent on education. In the Republic of Ireland, tuition fees have now been abolished, but we are on the verge of moving in the opposite direction. If we believe that higher education is a priority, we can choose to fund it adequately. If we must make tough choices, at least let us make the right choices. When the Australian Government introduced tuition fees, students had to pay only 23 per cent. of the total fee, yet that figure has now risen to 45 per cent., in spite of political promises that that would not happen. If we allow tuition fees to be introduced now, it will be only the thin end of the wedge.
  I never want to see in this country an education system where credit rating counts more than grade average, or where bank balances count more than qualifications. I stand by the traditional Scottish view of access to education available for all, irrespective of wealth, to allow each person to develop to the fullest of their abilities for the benefit of all in society. The Government promise us that fees and the abolition of grants, which will create a debt burden of more than £10,000 for the average student, will not act as a disincentive to students from lower income families. At present, a single unemployed person claiming jobseeker's allowance and housing benefit is £800 a year better off than a student with a full grant and a full loan. From next year, there will be no grants if the Bill is successful. The fact that tuition fees are to be means tested is not the real point: abolishing grants will hit the poorest hardest. The Government must stand condemned in their approach to the long-term future of access to higher education.
  The Government are acting unfairly and unwisely in three other ways. The introduction of tuition fees will specifically discriminate against English, Welsh and Northern Irish students at Scottish universities. In an attempt to create a level playing field, the Scottish Office promised to pay fourth-year tuition fees for Scottish students, while European Union law means that EU students will be treated in the same way as Scottish students. So far, the Department for Education and

  1021
  Employment and the Northern Ireland Office have not matched that offer for their students studying for a four-year honours course at a Scottish university.
  The result is that English, Welsh and Northern Irish applicants to Scottish universities will be expected to pay up to £1,000 more than Scottish or EU students for exactly the same course, even if they have exactly the same background circumstances. To put it simply, at Stirling university, a student from Sedgefield or Sheffield, Brightside will have to pay £1,000 more than a student from Scotland, Spain or Sweden. Apart from being unfair, that is having knock-on effects on all Scottish education institutions, yet the solution would cost the Government less than £2 million per year. That is a small amount in terms of overall departmental budgets, but it would have large effects on individual students and their families.
  This year's UCAS figures show that, at Dundee university, there has been a 12 per cent. drop in applications from England and Wales and a massive 23 per cent. drop in applications from Northern Ireland. The only plausible explanation for that is that potential students are being put off applying to Scottish universities because of the extra cost of an additional year's tuition fees, on top of four years' maintenance debts. I shall therefore be supporting the amendment passed in another place, which will ensure that all UK students at Scottish universities are treated in the same way.
  There should be fairness for all students who are undertaking longer degrees. The Department of Health has promised to pay fifth-year tuition fees for all medical and dental students; but students of veterinary medicine and architecture, whose courses also last at least five years, will receive no additional Government assistance and, if eligible, will be expected to pay tuition fees for each year of their course, on top of the cost of maintenance. The reason I have been given for that discrepancy is that medical and dental students go on to work in the public sector, while vets and architects do not. However, it is impossible to make such a distinction: many medics and dentists graduate and immediately go into the private sector and, as far as I know, the Government are not planning to ask for a refund from such students.
  It seems more likely to me that the real reason behind the discrimination is that the Department of Health wants to appease the British Medical Association, while there is no equivalent Government Department to sponsor the interests of vets or architects. That is not an acceptable justification for a Government policy, and I shall be arguing in favour of common sense and equity for all students who choose to undertake longer courses.
  With regard to mature students, this year's UCAS figures show an 18 per cent. drop in applications from those aged 25 and over. That is largely a result of the proposal to abolish grants, without which many older people cannot contemplate returning to education. Another factor is that students aged 50 and over will not be able to take out a student loan because the Government are unwilling to give out money that they say will probably not be repaid. That flies in the face of the principle of lifelong learning, which the Government claim to support. If the Government are serious about lifelong learning, they should be breaking down barriers to education, not creating new ones. I shall be interested
  1022
  to hear what the Minister means by being minded to eliminate that anomaly—I hope that he means to do it in reality.
  There is still time for the Government to listen to the electorate and think again about the Bill. The message from universities and colleges, students and the parents of future students is clear: abolishing grants and imposing tuition fees is not the right way to go about widening access to education. In a recent survey conducted by Edinburgh university students association, 91 per cent. of Scottish head teachers said that they believe that abolishing grants and introducing fees is incompatible with the principle of equal access for all, regardless of personal or financial circumstances.
  The current student population will not be the ones to suffer, and yet they have gone to considerable lengths to oppose these measures. Last week, 2 million students boycotted universities, and demonstrations took place in 14 cities throughout the United Kingdom. The House must seriously consider what is being said to it.
  If we really value the importance of higher education, we must find other ways of funding it. A recent Harris poll tells us that 45 per cent. of Labour MPs are not happy about these proposals. Some of the speeches that we have heard tonight bear that out. My earnest hope is that Labour Members will think carefully about how they will vote on the Bill.
  Higher education is a key to this country's future prosperity. We owe it to our children and to future generations to take seriously our responsibility to oppose the elements of the Bill that will be detrimental to the future of higher education in this country.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I wonder whether I may appeal once again—I understand that an appeal has already been made from the Chair—for shorter speeches, because some people will be disappointed otherwise.
  8.30 pm
  Mr. Vernon Coaker: I have taken note of what you said, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I start my brief remarks by saying that I believe that the Bill before us and the School Standards and Framework Bill will prove that this Government are one of the best-performing Governments on education we have seen. These two Bills, the extra resources that we have made available and the other measures that we are taking to improve educational standards throughout the system will prove that to be the case. I will deal with, among other aspects, the introduction of tuition fees and the abolition of grants, and explain what I believe to be a bigger barrier to people from lower-income families progressing into higher education.
  I commend to the House and to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State the establishment of the general teaching council. There can be a debate about the powers and remit of the council, but there is provision in the Bill to ensure that, as the general teaching council develops, the role envisaged for it can also develop.
  However, the general teaching council is especially important at the moment because, as many of my hon. Friends and Conservative Members will know, for a long

  1023
  time, morale in the teaching profession has been poor. It is incumbent on us all to recognise that good practice is being implemented and that much hard work is going on. Although the Bill contains proposals to deal with the very few teachers who are incompetent, we should recognise the general standards of professionalism that exist in our schools and the hard work that goes on in them.
  If, by means of the general teaching council and other measures, we can restore pride and self-esteem to our teachers, we shall do much to aid recruitment, and to retain in the profession the experienced teachers whom we need to retain, at all levels of education.
  Although I regard the establishment of the general teaching council as an especially important aspect of the Bill, I will briefly highlight two other measures. One is the provision of training for head teachers.
  None of us can be ignorant of the fact that, at present, it is immensely difficult to recruit head teachers and deputy head teachers to schools in all parts of the country. The new qualification will help by preparing potential applicants for such posts, increasing their confidence and self-esteem and giving them the experience that they will need to make the best use of the post when they obtain it.
  Let us make no mistake about it—the head teacher is fundamental to the success of every school. I say to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that we need to value head teachers and recognise the hard work that they do. We need to bestow qualifications, but we must also acknowledge that we need to make head teachers accountable for the achievements of their school. It is always difficult to achieve a balance between support and ensuring that people are accountable.
  I praise clause 17, which makes provision for initial teacher training to be inspected by Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools in England. There is a debate to be had about the best use of teacher training time and the best types of training; a wider debate needs to take place. I believe that the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) discussed whether there was a need for a curriculum for teacher training. I believe that we should think about that.
  We should seek to train our teachers using what are regarded as the best methods in the classroom, but above all—I say this as someone who taught for many years—we must give our teachers the skills to cope in the classroom, so that they can deal with the problems that they encounter. Without that classroom control—that ability to practise properly in the classroom—the teaching skills and efforts of the teacher go to waste.
  After training has taken place—in college, university or wherever—the crucial induction year follows. That year should be clearly focused, with clear targets, and it should be based on practice in the classroom. As much support as possible should be given by practising professionals to ensure the necessary standard and quality of teaching. Class size is important—I would not argue against that—but the quality of teaching in school is the fundamental requirement for achievement.
  I support the new student finance system. I do not believe that students from lower socio-economic groups—the groups on which the argument has centred this evening—will be deterred from entering higher education by tuition fees or the abolition of the grant. However, I do believe that what prevents pupils from lower
  1024
  socio-economic groups from going to university is the fact that many of them do not achieve at school. They do not achieve in nursery school, in junior school or in secondary school—and in my experience, even when they do achieve, one cannot persuade them to stay on after age 16 in further education, let alone persuade them to enter higher education.
  Unless we tackle that fundamental discrepancy and problem in our system, we can debate tuition fees and the abolition of the grant as much as we like, but the people from the lower socio-economic groups whom we want to enter higher education will never do so. In that respect, the School Standards and Framework Bill—which, when it becomes law, will operate alongside this Bill—is fundamental. We must raise expectations and tackle numeracy and literacy problems in schools.
  I am sure that hon. Members talk to their children, as I talk to mine, and that many of their children, whatever their age, already talk about A-levels and about going to university. It seems to be a natural part of their lives and their educational ambition. Unfortunately, that perception seems to be lacking elsewhere.
  If we can generate the funds—which is what the Bill is about—from the fees, by raising the cap on the number of people able to enter higher education and tackling some of the problems of expectations in schools, we shall get more of our young people into higher education than at present.
  On the abolition of the grant, I believe that we need to stop regarding loans as loans and start regarding them as an investment for the future. If we can start to regard them as an investment, rather than as a loan or a grant, we can start to change attitudes.
  I remember the debate some months ago about the fees issue and the abolition of grants. The catastrophic scenarios and the predictions of plummeting applications have not materialised. In fact, the opposite has occurred. Some surprise was expressed as the number of school leavers' applications—I recognise that there is a problem in some other areas—thwarted the applications doomsday. However, I warn hon. Members that, if we continue to paint a picture of doom and gloom, we shall create fear among those who would aspire to higher education. We must set out the facts about raising quality in higher education.
  Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would care to contemplate the fact that under the Government's proposals, over the next three years, £2.5 billion extra will be taken out of the pockets of students coming up this autumn and those who will follow them and, because of the need to lend money to them, barely £250 million will be available over that period. Students coming up this autumn must face the fact that they will have to bear all the burden of the Government's new proposals while reaping none of the benefits.
  Mr. Coaker: They will receive the benefit of higher education and the benefit that comes from attending those institutions. We are starting to put additional resources—including £165 million next year—into our universities. It is worth making another point. If students contribute towards their university education, it empowers them and gives them more clout in demanding high-quality education from those institutions.

  1025
  Another important point about the Bill may be overlooked. I commend the fact that the Government have introduced an entitlement for some 100,000 16 and 17-year-olds to have a guaranteed return to education should they want it. This Bill and the School Standards and Framework Bill, which we have debated and will consider again, combine to form a radical package of measures which will increase opportunities not just for the middle and working classes, but for all young people so that they may achieve the very best.
  8.41 pm
  Mr. Andrew Lansley: I shall be briefer than I had intended. The Bill is divided into three parts—as Caesar said of Gaul—but I shall speak to only two. I shall refer to part I and the general teaching council at greater length, as many hon. Members have dwelt upon higher education funding in greater detail.
  The Government's proposals for the general teaching council are not necessarily those that appear in the Bill. The provisions in the Bill are better than those originally proposed by the Government. They treat teaching as a profession of the highest standing, as the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) emphasised a moment ago. In response to amendments made in another place, the Government should now follow through the reasoning behind the general teaching council. That reasoning is, essentially, that teaching is a profession, and that teachers are capable of substantial self-regulation and of promoting higher standards and an enhanced status for teaching. That recognition of teachers' status should be carried forward to an acceptance that the proposed general teaching council should not simply be charged with administration and the rendering of advice to the Secretary of State, but be given responsibility and powers.
  I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association—obviously in an honorary capacity—and I endorse its view that the general teaching council should be responsible for the register, for determining standards of professional conduct and medical fitness to teach, and for advising on the professional framework for teaching, recruitment and so on. Those issues were the subject of amendments to the Bill in another place, which I urge the Government to accept. If they do not do so, the maturity and status of the teaching profession will, by implication, be diminished by comparison with the medical profession and the General Medical Council, which I know well.
  Ministers must be assured that the powers of the GTC will not interfere with their responsibilities in relation to what is known as "list 99" or in respect of their proposed powers to dismiss incompetent teachers. Governing bodies and local education authorities must retain the responsibility to ensure the effective provision of education in schools, especially in the case of failing schools or incompetent teachers. Subject to those reservations, I urge the substantial conferment of responsibility upon the GTC. It should not have a simple advisory role.
  Ministers may say that the GTC must prove itself before it can assume those powers. That is an interesting but rare caution on the part of Ministers which is not manifested in their attitude towards innovation or constitutional proposals in other legislation. It would also
  1026
  not be well understood by teachers. The experience of other professional regulatory bodies is well established both within and outside education. That experience suggests that the powers and responsibilities that the Bill, as it currently stands, foresees for the GTC are neither excessive nor particularly hazardous.
  The issue of composition lies alongside the question of powers. I believe that the Government have agreed that teachers will constitute the majority of members of the GTC, and that is welcome. The GTC's independence, in reality and in perception, will also be very important. In that respect, I ask Ministers to go further and agree that the chairman of the GTC will be independent and that the majority of teacher members will be elected. The Secretary of State should use his powers of appointment only to ensure the representation of legitimate interests that are independent of Government, have a role in education provision and will benefit from the achievement of higher standards in schools. Parents, employers and employers' representative bodies are particularly significant in that respect.
  Before leaving part I, I commend to the House and to Ministers the initiative, which will run in parallel with the creation of the GTC, for a college of teaching to promote higher standards. It is important to recognise that a regulatory body is not always best placed to harness the voluntary efforts of organisations involved in innovative and ground-breaking initiatives.
  I turn to part II of the Bill. During the election campaign, my Labour opponent took pains to tell students at the Long Road sixth-form college in my constituency that it was not Labour policy to impose tuition fees on students. Interestingly, today I received a petition signed by 400 students from that college demonstrating their opposition to the imposition of tuition fees in higher education. At that meeting just under a year ago, I recalled that, as president of a student union in the 1970s, I demonstrated against education cuts imposed by a Labour Government. I said that I did not think it would be long before the students at Long Road college would be demonstrating against a Labour Government if one were elected. I did not think that my prophecy would be fulfilled quite so quickly, but it has been—and I hope that students at that college and elsewhere will reflect on that point.
  It is interesting that the Government justify their proposals by claiming that only this system will deliver additional resources for higher education. We shall see. We have yet to see whether those resources will be wholly additional. I shall be interested to see to what extent Ministers who respond to the debate will be able to anticipate the outcome of the comprehensive spending review. If they cannot, and if we find in due course that the outcome of the spending review is that, as a result of tuition fees, higher education spending is reduced compared with previous allocations or compared with education resources generally, we shall draw the conclusion that the system did not produce the extra resources intended. Hypothecation of a modest amount of resources provided by tuition fees will not necessarily mean that other public expenditure will not be discounted or adjusted to reflect the resources retained within higher education as a consequence of tuition fees.
  It is interesting that part of the rationale for the extra resources is to support additional student numbers. That is a debatable hypothesis, because the changes proposed

  1027
  by the Government in tuition fees and the maintenance grant may well frustrate the growth in higher education demand and numbers that the change in funding is intended to support.
  I shall draw attention to one further issue and one unhappy consequence of the Government's policies. The issue on which I hope that Ministers will be able to give us further assurance was raised by my constituent, the Baroness Perry of Southwark, who has a distinguished record in higher education. Is it the Government's intention to table amendments clarifying the position of colleges in Oxford and Cambridge? The universities are not necessarily able to make commitments about the tuition fees position of colleges at Cambridge and Oxford. The Government should make it clear that where funding council grants for students are not being claimed, it would not be the intention to constrain the fees charged by colleges.
  My final point relates to medical students, whom the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Welsh) mentioned. Surveys indicate that students are leaving university with £4,000 of debt. Medical students leave university with twice that level of debt. Medical studies, which my wife undertook, are a five or six-year course. Many students attend medical school and take medical degrees, as my wife did, after a first degree in another scientific subject. From year three, the academic year is 50 weeks, not the standard 30 weeks. In view of all that, it would be highly inequitable if the Government did not do all that they could not only to remit fees after year five, but to ensure that, during their medical degree courses, medical students do not incur more tuition fees and hence more debt than would students undertaking shorter and less financially onerous courses.
  I see serious flaws in the Government's proposals and much merit in the reasoned amendment tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends, which I shall gladly support.
  8.52 pm
  Mr. David Chaytor: I endorse whole-heartedly the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) in his graphic description of the impact of the previous Government's policies on universities. By coincidence, he and I worked in adjacent institutions for several years without realising it. My responsibilities involved me in visiting universities throughout the north-west. I can say that my hon. Friend's description of his experiences applies not only to every university in the north-west, but to every university in the United Kingdom throughout the Tory years.
  The Tory party's attempts to reinvent itself as the friend of the universities and of students, and as the champion of the dispossessed generally, will be treated with a combination of contempt and ridicule throughout the education service.
  It is interesting that the bulk of the debate not only tonight but in another place and in the country at large has focused entirely on fees and the abolition of the grant. That is understandable, because the topic is controversial, but unfortunately it has meant that there has not been enough debate on the other aspects of the Bill.
  That has a symbolic significance, because the other aspects of the Bill deal with the education of the vast majority of the children and young people in this country. It is a measure of the way in which debate on education
  1028
  in Britain has been dominated by the graduate elite that the concerns of the non-graduate majority are nearly always neglected.
  I endorse the comments of others about the importance of the proposals in part I concerning the general teaching council, head teachers' qualifications and the introduction of the induction year. Those measures will have a major impact on the quality of education in our schools and will contribute significantly to driving up standards.
  I shall not go over comments that other hon. Members have made, but, in his reply, perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister can deal with a point that has not been mentioned in the debate. The GTC applies only to maintained schools. What is the relationship with teaching staff in sixth-form colleges and further education colleges? There is some movement of staff between sixth-form colleges and schools, and increasingly between further education colleges and schools. It is anomalous that staff teaching in similar institutions with similar students and similar courses will be bound by different rules and regulations.
  On the time off for 16 and 17-year-olds, I wish that, over the years, successive Governments had given the same attention to the needs of unskilled 16 and 17-year-olds in low-grade, dead-end jobs as they gave to the needs of the elite in our universities. Had we done that, our general level of achievement and our general ability to compete in the world would have been far greater than it is now.
  I welcome the proposals in the Bill, but I have two comments. First, it is unfortunate that we have not managed to specify exactly what the entitlement will be. The Bill makes it clear that if a young person feels aggrieved that his employer is not giving him the time off to which he thinks he is entitled, he can take the matter to a tribunal. My worry is that that might generate a large number of appeals to industrial tribunals, which could have been avoided if the Bill had specified the entitlement more tightly.
  Secondly, I urge the Government to consider whether the cap of NVQ 2 might be lifted. Again, it would be anomalous if some young people whose qualifications entitled them to time off were working in the same firm with a slightly better skilled colleague whose qualifications prevented him from getting time off. That could cause friction, and it does not make sense in the context of a staff development policy for the company concerned.
  I hope that, over time, the entitlement to time off and perhaps even to a fixed number of hours in the course of the working year could be extended beyond 16 and 17-year-olds to the adult working population. Other countries did that many years ago, and the United Kingdom should follow that lead.
  On tuition fees and maintenance grants, there is no point in disguising the fact that many students and a considerable number of parents are uneasy about the proposed changes. It would be dishonest to pretend that that is not the case. We must remember, however, that whenever change is proposed, people are uneasy. We tend to be a deeply conservative nation and cautious about any change, whatever its merits.
  From all the discussions that I have had with parents and students in my constituency and outside it in the past few months, it is clear that once one explains to students and parents the details of the Government's proposals and

  1029
  the rationale for them, their opposition starts to melt away. The provision of detailed information is vital to the process of explaining to students and parents what will come into operation next September.
  Some aspects require further consideration in Committee. The position of mature students has been mentioned. The figures show an 18 per cent. drop in mature students' applications, which is not completely accounted for by the arbitrary nature of the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service deadline in September. Although mature students tend to apply a little later, 18 per cent. of them do not apply later. We must take note of the fact that people in their 30s and 40s are worried about whether, on top of their existing mortgage payments and other loans that they may have, they will be landed with a debt that they will find unsustainable. We must take that on board.
  We must also take account of the needs of part-time students. I am sure that every Member present in the Chamber appreciates that if the Government's target of 500,000 new places is to be achieved, that will be met through part-time students in universities. We must provide support for those students.
  In advancing the argument for the changes proposed in the Bill, we must challenge head on two issues. The first is free education. It has been said several times this evening—it needs, however, to be said time and again—that, in post-18 education, we have never had free education other than for full-time undergraduates. Part-time undergraduates have been eligible for fees, as have full-time and part-time postgraduates, along with everyone in further education. Almost 4 million students currently are eligible for fees. We must nail the myth that the Bill is somehow betraying the cause of free education.
  Secondly, there is the relationship between levels of participation and the availability of free education for full-time undergraduates. I could be convinced that the Bill would be problematic if there had been a relationship between extending participation and the availability of free tuition and grants from 1962 to the early 1980s. It is obvious, however, that there was not that relationship. During the period to which I referred, there were grants that, if not generous, could be managed on, free tuition and a marginal increase in access to university education. I conclude from that that there is little relationship between the cost of going to university and the widening of the student base.
  It is interesting that in the early 1980s, when the numbers of students in universities tended to expand, there was an expansion into other areas of the middle classes that had not previously benefited from university education. As we moved into the 1990s, when at last some inroads were made into students from working-class backgrounds, that was in spite of the difficult financial situation brought about by the 50:50 system of loans and grants introduced by the previous Government.
  I conclude from that, as I am sure do many other hon. Members, that the real issue in the relationship between participation and access to university is not the question of cost but whether there are sufficient numbers of young people who are qualified to apply in the first place. The issue is whether the culture in which they operate encourages them to apply and whether the Government
  1030
  encourage a culture of high achievement and high aspiration. That approach has been sadly lacking in our education for decades. I know that that will change with the policies of the new Labour Government.
  We must appreciate that the availability of free university education for full-time undergraduates has been one of the pillars of the post-war middle-class welfare state, which the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) so articulately described earlier, along with the subsidies to company car owners, mortgage interest tax relief and the panoply of tax avoidance and general tax relief. Those have been the pillars of the middle-class welfare state. It is to the credit of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and previous Chancellors that they have gradually realised that and gradually started to dismantle the middle-class welfare state.
  Those of us who want desperately to see the development of mass high education—I imagine that that includes most hon. Members in the Chamber—and the development of the potential of all our young people, with an increase in opportunities for all the adult population, must accept that we have to invest in the majority, rather than skewing public finances so as continually to invest in an elite.
  Those are simple arguments. I know that when potential students and their parents are confronted with them, they quickly start to understand them. I hope that those arguments will be pressed throughout consideration of the Bill in Committee and during its other stages. I know that they will gradually win over the majority in this place and those involved in the changes as the months go by.
  I am not saying that we are discussing changes that will easily be brought about. No one can say that, because we are aware of the difficulties. However, we know that the difficulties are largely of perception rather than of reality. We know also that underlying the Bill is an important drive to extend educational opportunity.
  What will be the future of the income that will derive from the introduction of tuition fees and the change from grants to loans? There is an important debate between those who wish to see all the new revenue going back into the universities and those who wish to see it spread more widely. If all the revenue goes back into the universities, we shall be using public finance to reproduce the advantages of the elite.
  I want to see high-quality university education. I benefited from that education, and I want my children and my constituents also to benefit from it. We must understand, however, that we shall not develop such a system unless we improve standards and levels of achievement in primary schools, secondary schools and colleges. The key feature is to secure more investment in other parts of the education system as well as in the universities. The key to that is changing the current crazy method of accounting, so that loans do not count against the public sector borrowing requirement.
  9.5 pm
  Mr. Don Foster: I entirely agree with the final remark of the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor). It is vital that the accounting procedures are changed. At the same time, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) has already explained that we shall be opposing the Bill on Second Reading because there are many parts of it

  1031
  with which we fundamentally disagree, not least the Government's proposal to introduce means-tested tuition fees for full-time students.
  The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) graphically described the funding crisis in our universities, and it is clear that there is a need to get more money into the universities, to re-establish the quality of higher education provision. Of equal importance is expansion of access.
  My colleagues and I believe that there are three beneficiaries of high-quality mass higher education. The beneficiaries include, first, the nation as a whole. Our nation benefits from having a highly skilled, qualified and educated population. Therefore, we believe that the state should increase its contribution, paid for if necessary by increased taxation.
  Secondly, employers benefit from a highly skilled, trained and educated work force. We believe that they, too, should be making an increased contribution to our universities, perhaps through an education and training levy.
  Thirdly, we accept that students benefit from higher education, and if more money is needed for it, they, too, should make an increased contribution. We therefore accept the Government's proposal to replace maintenance grants with loans. We welcome the Government's proposal to introduce a much fairer repayment scheme for those loans.
  That having been said, we believe that the means-tested student fee is a step too far, for several reasons. First, it is wrong in principle. It is a further tax on learning and it will, as many hon. Members have already said, deter some potential students. The Secretary of State rightly says that if students go straight to university from school, there will not be a significant reduction in the number of applicants for the following year. As for the older age ranges, however, we see a significant reduction when comparison is made with the current year. We must always remember that the older age range—mature students—now forms more than half the university population.
  Secondly, the proposal is wrong in practice. We have already seen the fiasco over gap year students and the farce regarding Scottish university arrangements. A student from my constituency who wants to go to a Scottish university will have to pay £4,000, whereas a student from Brussels will have to pay only £3,000.
  Means testing will create huge anomalies: the child of a wealthy banker who goes to university but then goes on to a low-paid but nevertheless valuable job as a social worker will have to pay fees, whereas the child of a poor delivery driver, perhaps, who goes to university but ends up being a wealthy business person will have nothing to repay because the fees have been remitted.
  We believe that every student over 18 should be treated as an independent adult. We should not base what they pay for their education on their parents' income. I thought that the Secretary of State believed in that, because, in an article that he wrote last July in The Times, he said:
  "Our solution reflects the graduate's earnings of the future, not the circumstances of today's students."
  With his and the Government's proposals for means-tested tuition fees, that is simply not the case.
  As has been rightly pointed out, the proposals would bring a range of other problems and anomalies. People who are training to be teachers, who do a three-year
  1032
  degree and then go on to do a PGCE, will get their fourth year free, whereas the student in the fourth year of a BEd will have to pay the fee. There will be huge problems with the cost of collection, and enormous problems with means-testing parents in other European countries.
  Thirdly, we believe—I am delighted that we have the support of the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon)—that the whole approach is wrong, because the Government are not prepared to ring-fence the money that will be gathered from students in higher education. The Government's proposal will not solve the problems that the Dearing committee set out to solve.
  We are fundamentally opposed to the proposal to introduce means-tested tuition fees for students, but acknowledge that the Bill contains a number of positive proposals. We welcome the Government's proposal to establish a general teaching council, although we are concerned about certain matters. We have long argued for a professional body for teachers, and a GTC would give the teaching profession the status that it deserves.
  We were delighted to hear the complete U-turn tonight by hon. Members on the Tory Benches, who only 12 months ago opposed any attempt to introduce a GTC. Indeed, the U-turn is so marked that it is they who stressed the vital importance of the GTC being a powerful body. We agree. We argued that the Government's original proposals were somewhat limp and that they fell far short of what teachers want and deserve.
  We very much hope that the Government will not attempt to water down the concessions gained in the other place on the arrangements for the GTC. Indeed, when the Bill goes into Committee, we shall seek a further strengthening of the GTC's powers, and other improvements. We want, for example, to ensure that its composition includes representatives of the Churches. That is particularly important, as one third of all schools in England are Church foundations, and a quarter of all pupils are educated in Church schools.
  We shall table amendments to give the GTC consultative functions with regard to teacher training, recruitment, retention, service development and the curriculum.
  We also welcome the Government's proposals for a professional qualification for head teachers. A number of right hon. and hon. Members referred to the vital role of the head teacher. It is vital that head teachers are given the opportunity to acquire professional qualifications. Indeed, we should go further and insist not only that new head teachers be required to have such qualifications, but that, within a reasonable time, all existing head teachers should have such qualifications.
  We do, of course, accept the Government's proposals for the return of a probationary year. We argued strongly against its abolition when the previous Administration proposed it and eventually made it happen, so we are delighted that, at long last, the much-needed probationary year—for a period of not less than one school year—will be put back on the statute book. It is important that we ensure high-quality provision in the support offered to newly qualified teachers, and that it is consistent across the country.
  The Minister of State in the other place said:
  "The standards which new teachers will have to meet in the induction year will eventually be laid down by the Secretary of State."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 March 1998; Vol. 587, c. 113.]

  1033
  I hope that the Minister will assure us that we shall see the draft proposals in Committee.
  I am delighted that in the other place we were given an assurance that the inspection of initial teacher training will cover only the vocational element of university courses. I am also delighted with the assurance that those institutions will be given warning of any inspection. Why have those assurances been given for England but not for Scotland?
  I hope that the Minister will deal with the concerns about the current inspection of initial teacher training. We need to sort out the cycle of inspections. Ofsted has inspected the primary provision in a number of ITT institutions, and has then carried out a second round of inspections of the same institutions without their having had the opportunity to see the published reports of the initial inspections. There is concern about the quality of the qualifications of inspectors, many of whom have considerably less experience and fewer qualifications than those whom they are inspecting.
  The Liberal Democrats welcome some parts of the Bill, but we are implacably opposed to the introduction of means-testing for tuition fees, so we shall vote against it.
  9.16 pm
  Ms Diane Abbott: In May last year, my party won an historic victory. The core Labour vote of 8 million or 9 million people who voted for us throughout the 1980s came out and voted for us once more. Historic numbers of Tories abstained because they were disgusted by the performance of their party in government. It was new Labour's unique achievement that an unprecedented number of Tories—1.5 million to 2 million—switched to Labour. We also won an unprecedented proportion of the votes of first-time voters, without which we could not have achieved such an overwhelming victory. I make my remarks with those young voters in mind. They managed to shake off the cynicism bred by the media in the 1980s and 1990s, but I do not believe that when they voted Labour in May, they were voting for the combination of the elimination of grants and the imposition of tuition fees.
  My hon. Friends have been dismissive and have said that there is no such thing as free higher education. I beg to differ: I had free higher education. They said that only middle-class children benefited from the existing system. I beg to differ: my family emigrated to this country in 1951, and I was able to go into higher education. The number of children from ethnic minorities and from working-class families that went on to higher education was far too low, but the fact that the present system is poor is no reason for making it worse.
  I shall deal briefly with the issue of further education. My hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench have tried throughout the debate to play the game of divide and rule. Resources for universities can be obtained only at the expense of further education. I feel strongly about further education, because most of my constituents go not to university but to further education colleges, notably Hackney community college. [Interruption.] Representatives from Hackney community college came to see me last week to express their concern about the Government's failure to understand the specific needs of
  1034
  inner-city community colleges. Nothing will be gained by trying to play divide and rule in education—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Those on the Treasury Bench should be quiet while the hon. Lady is speaking.
  Ms Abbott: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that my constituents would be surprised to see Labour Ministers heckling someone who is trying to make a case on behalf of her constituents.
  My constituents who come to my surgery talking about problems in further education are asking not for a diminution in resources to universities or for a levelling down of universities' resources but for a levelling up of the resources that they receive. I tell Ministers that the divide-and-rule argument will not take them very far.
  I have never met Sir Ron Dearing, but I feel as if I know him. For several years now, he has played a role in education politics as a type of superman figure: "You've got a problem? Call for Ron Dearing." Previously, both the then Government and the then Opposition were only too happy to kick the higher education funding issue into touch by talking about the Dearing report. We heard about Dearing as if he was some sort of educational Pope. We were told, "It's all down to Sir Ron Dearing. We're so happy that it has gone over to Sir Ron Dearing."
  So what happened? Ron Dearing examined the matter, and he considered it carefully. I have just—again—quickly reread the Dearing report, because, listening to Ministers, I wondered whether we had read the same report. Dearing quite clearly says:
  "loans…have a disincentive effect on the willingness of individuals from socio-economic groups IV and V to participate in higher education".
  Dearing also says:
  "Simply replacing grants with loans costs more money in the short term, does not save much in the longer term, largely because loans are treated as public expenditure, and, worse still, much of this spending goes to families of students from higher income backgrounds."
  Dearing also said—it goes to the heart of my opposition to the proposals—that
  "this option also imposes a heavy debt burden on graduates and impedes access from lower-income backgrounds."
  I have sat through this entire debate and listened to the speeches of hon. Members, not one of whom has persuaded me that one common sense perception is not right: that the debt level that will be caused by the Government's proposals will act as a disincentive to entering higher education for young people from—as hon. Members have mentioned—a culture or a family that has never participated in higher education, but who see their peers going out, earning good money and, for example, taking a girlfriend to clubs.
  Common sense suggests that it must be a disincentive if one will be faced with problems not only of culture and of meeting standards but of debt of £10,000 or more. That was the finding of the Dearing commission, and that is what I believe is true. Of course, there are other factors in working-class children being denied access to higher education, such as their achievement level at school and cultural factors. However, for adherents of new Labour—which has embraced the market with such enthusiasm—to say that the key principle of market cost

  1035
  is not an issue in education defies understanding. A good's cost must affect people's willingness to acquire that good. That is as true in higher education as in any other part of the market.
  The problem with the Government's proposals—Ministers wring their hands and say that they have to make the proposals—is that they will prove to be a disincentive to students from lower-income backgrounds and from ethnic minorities, and they will not generate the funds required to make good the damage—which Labour Members have mentioned in this debate—that the Tories wrought in higher education in the 1980s and 1990s, particularly because the fees will not be completely ring fenced.
  Why are we in a situation in which intelligent men and women are trying to pretend that black is white—that somehow loading working-class students with debt will provide them with an incentive to enter higher education? We are in this situation because we talked to the British electorate last year, and we offered them a snare and a delusion—the delusion that one can have real stepped change in social provision without raising taxation.
  Ministers seem convinced of the moral rightness of their position, but, as the months become years and the effect of the changes become apparent, not only will there not be an increase in working-class access to higher education, but there will be a bigger drop-out rate. People will try, but they will not manage.
  I have listened to the entire debate today and I followed the debate in another place, but I am not persuaded that the proposals will not be a disincentive to ethnic minority and working-class students.
  I remember being 16 and trying to think through the options available to me. I am quite clear that, without access to a grant and free tuition, a working-class, black 16-year-old could never have gone to Cambridge. The fact that I was able to do so was a credit to the education system. I am not prepared to put at a disadvantage young women who are in the same position as I was 20-odd years ago. I have benefited from the education system, despite all the problems and the limited access available to working-class children, and I am not prepared to pull the ladder up beneath my progress for the next generation of young people.
  The Bill will not do what it says—it will not solve the funding problems in higher education. My mother left school at 14, but she had a saying that pride comes before a fall. Ministers are very proud of their arguments and their skill in taking the legislation so far, but when the public understand the consequences of the package of measures before us, the Government will not feel so proud.
  9.25 pm
  Mr. Oliver Letwin: I shall be brief and I certainly cannot match the passionate eloquence of the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott).
  Some hours ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) said that he discerned a degree of progress. I discern even more. In the early 1980s, I was in the official Box when Sir Keith Joseph, the then Secretary of State for Education, tried to introduce a modest loans scheme. Labour Members, some of whom
  1036
  are present today, bayed for his blood and righteously trampled the grapes of wrath. There was some dissension among the Government ranks then as now. At the time, Conservative Members had their doubts about a loan scheme. So there has been progress, and now almost everyone in the Chamber favours the idea of a loans scheme.
  The Secretary of State said that he was not aiming at penalising students at the point of entry, but at asking for a contribution at the point of reward. That seems to be the essence of a loans scheme.
  For those of us who have been ardent advocates of loans for the past 20 years or so, it always seems a signal point that a loan should be repayable only at the point of genuine reward. If the previous Conservative Administration made a mistake, it was to set the threshold too low at 85 per cent. of average earnings.
  The Secretary of State has prided himself—and no doubt the Minister will do so, too—on having ameliorated the repayment schedules. However, he has done that at great cost—a point which has not been made so far. He has extended downwards markedly the level at which people begin to repay to £11,000. In doing so, he has made two terrible dents in the principle that underlies the acceptance of loans by all hon. Members who accept that principle.
  First, people do not have to have a reward above the average—or even near the average—to be eligible to repay the loan. That is incoherent with the idea that the basis for the loan is the economic benefit that students derive from going to university. It is not coherent to assert that as the basis for the loan and then to argue that those on well-below average earnings should nevertheless have to repay it.
  Secondly—and more important in many ways, because the repayments for those at the bottom of the scale are admittedly low—we all know that Chancellors of either party are not knights in shining armour. From time to time, they have fiscal exigencies. In such circumstances, it is all too likely that they will slowly uprate the amount of loan to be repaid and extend yet further down the scale the threshold at which they start to be repaid.
  If that happens, the fears of the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington may be realised. If people from poor backgrounds feel that they will have to make repayments even if they opt for low-paid employment or fail to move into employment, they will have a rational basis for not attending higher education and the reasons for believing in loans—many of us believe in them—will be destroyed. On those grounds alone, we must oppose the Bill.
  9.30 pm
  Mr. David Willetts: The Bill is now much better than the one that the Government originally drafted. I congratulate those in another place on their hard work in improving a Bill that came before them in such an inadequate form. I also congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) and for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) on their thoughtful contributions. We also heard some pertinent political points from my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) about whether the money would benefit higher education. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) spoke for many

  1037
  people who heard Labour candidates at the election giving assurances that a Labour Government would never impose tuition fees. The now Foreign Secretary was caught out saying that on air, but we know that many of them said it off air throughout the campaign.
  I should like to comment briefly on the proposals for the general teaching council. The Liberal Democrats have asked about Conservative policy. It is simple. We do not see any point in having a toothless advisory body. If we are to have a general teaching council, it should live up to its name by working hard to enforce professional standards, as the General Medical Council and the Law Society do. There is no point in setting up a body with a purely advisory role and financing it from a compulsory levy. New Labour likes compulsion. The only thing that it likes more than compulsion is banning things. Perhaps the Government would like a world in which everything that was not compulsory was banned.
  The Government's vision for the general teaching council is the apotheosis of compulsion—a compulsory levy with the main purpose of raising money to finance the register listing the names of those paying the compulsory levy. That is hardly a significant contribution to raising educational standards. That is why we welcome the amendments tabled in the other place to give the general teaching council real powers. We hope that the Minister will assure us that the Government are serious about giving the general teaching council a real job and will not spout waffle about there being scope for it to increase its role gradually over time. If the powers are not provided in the Bill, there is no scope for the general teaching council to discharge them.
  What about higher education and the Dearing report? Our policy is simple. We helped to set up the Dearing inquiry, in consultation with the then Opposition. Lord Dearing, as he now is, learnt and changed his mind during the inquiry. He clearly began the inquiry expecting to conclude that maintenance grants should be abolished. However, he concluded that there was a powerful case for keeping them. If Lord Dearing could learn while preparing his report, we can all learn from his conclusions.
  The Secretary of State will regret tearing up the Dearing report the day that it was published. Indeed, he spent several days before the publication briefing against it, saying what a dreadful piece of work it was. He will regret that hasty decision almost as much as he will regret the frivolous way in which he barracked the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), who was making some serious comments which he did not choose to take in the spirit in which they were meant.
  The figures are perfectly clear. The arguments, after all the hours of debate, are very simple. Under the Government's proposals, if one comes from an affluent background, one will have a debt after a university education of £8,055—£3,000 higher than in the current system. If one comes from a low-income background, one will have a debt of £10,320—£5,265 higher than in the current system. Those are the facts. No amount of attacks on our record or on whether we should have expanded education more or put ever more money into it will get round those simple facts about the burden of debt which people from low-income families will face as a result of the Government's proposals.
  1038
  Sir Ron Dearing, as he then was, was very clear on the point in his report. He said:
  "We would be particularly reluctant to see any reduction in public subsidies being concentrated on students from the poorest families".
  Yet, that is what the Government are doing.
  Even The Guardian—if I may quote it—put the point rather delicately. [Interruption.] I thought that that would wind up Labour Members; they do not like it coming from The Guardian. The comment was put very cautiously. The Guardian said of the proposal:
  "It does not fit snugly with the Government's aim of increasing access".
  I think that that is put rather well.
  I must confess a certain glimmer of sympathy for the Liberal Democrats. We are all used to them as the tax-and-spend party. We heard them again in this debate parading their belief in higher expenditure on further and higher education. We have heard much about the penny on income tax—and we all know that they have spent it many times over—but at least they accept that they would have to raise taxes to finance the higher expenditure.
  That is more honest than the Government's policy. The Government are still talking about 500,000 extra places in higher education. The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) stated during the most recent Education and Employment Question Time—he might have regretted it—that the Government would reverse the fall in unit funding for higher education. Yet, the measures that they have brought forward, which are supposed to deliver such ambitious promises, are what: the provision of £165 million this year, which is entirely financed by smoke and mirrors. It is a shameless piece of accountancy manipulation.
  I do not know how many hon. Members have followed this ingenious manoeuvre—[Interruption.] Is the Secretary of State muttering under his breath, "Brilliant"? It was brilliance of a sort; the brilliance of a magician. He took the annual payment for universities and said that he would pay it in three instalments. He then promptly announced that he would put the money that he saved in the first year—£165 million—back into higher education. I do not regard that as a serious measure to address the problem that the Secretary of State claims exists in higher education.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Dr. Kim Howells): What would you do?
  Mr. Willetts: We have not made pledges on 500,000 extra places and on reversing the fall in unit funding. The Labour Government have made pledges. We have a shameless piece of manipulation of the accounts followed by all the pain of the measures, which will raise even less money than that raised by the measure on single parent benefit. The measures will raise £100 million in 1999–2000 and £150 million in 2000–2001. That is why the Government are destroying the last elements of maintenance grants. That is why they are putting all the extra debt on students from low-income families—for £100 million. It is simply not worth it.
  I hope that the Minister, who is well known for being close to the Prime Minister, will explain a puzzle that many of us have encountered as we have followed the

  1039
  arguments over the past few months. What does the Prime Minister think that he is doing? During Prime Minister's Question Time, he said:
  "I made it clear throughout"—
  he is referring to the general election campaign—
  "that we should abide by the recommendations of the Dearing committee".—[Official Report, 29 October 1997; Vol. 299, c. 892.]
  He repeated that only last month, when he said:
  "we said specifically, as, indeed, did the Conservatives, that we would abide by the outcome of the Dearing committee report".—[Official Report, 25 February 1998; Vol. 306, c. 364.]
  That is extraordinary: the Prime Minister claims to have made a promise during the election campaign that he did not make, only to break it now—the one thing that the Government are not doing is implementing the Dearing report.
  There have not been many Government meetings since 1 May that I should have liked to attend, but I should have liked to be present when it was explained to the Prime Minister what the House of Lords had done to his Bill. Someone must have taken him through what had happened, explaining that the House of Lords vote would implement measures that he had twice said—at Prime Minister's Question Time and during the election campaign—that he was committed to, even though he was not, and why the party must be whipped through the Lobby to defeat them.
  Perhaps the pre-Budget briefing that we have enjoyed today from Mr. Whelan explains what is going on. The following comment appears on page 2 of today's edition of The Daily Telegraph:
  "Whitehall officials"—
  I hope that this does not refer to the gentlemen in the Box—
  "fear that Mr. Blair is spending a disproportionate amount of time on party matters at the expense of Government business."
  The same briefing was given to The Times, which reports:
  "Mr. Blair's closest and most senior allies are also seriously worried that he does not know what is going on in individual Whitehall departments."
  They should be worried—the Prime Minister thinks that he is implementing the Dearing report when he is whipping his troops through the Lobby to reverse Dearing. But, of course, he will not be with us, because, as the briefing tells us,
  "MPs are also becoming increasingly angry about his failure to turn up at the House of Commons either to vote"—
  Mr. Blunkett: I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman a simple question: will he be with us in the Lobby? If what he says is true, he will vote for the Second Reading of a Bill that, he says, his noble Friends have so shaped that it will bring about exactly what he wants.
  Mr. Willetts: We shall vote for our reasoned amendment, which identifies the welcome features of the Bill that have been added in the other place and explains that, sadly, the Government have not gone far enough in implementing the Dearing report—they have not done everything that the Prime Minister has promised that he is already doing.
  1040
  What will the Prime Minister do? Mr. Whelan's briefing states:
  "The Prime Minister has turned up for only seven votes out of 147 since the election."
  If he turned up tonight, how would he vote on our reasoned amendment—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Our comments should be made not about the voting habits of another Member, but about the matters before the House.
  Mr. Willetts: I think, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that my point refers to remarks the Prime Minister's remarks at Question Time.
  Mr. Willis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Willetts: I am sorry, but I have only three minutes left.
  The Prime Minister appears to be labouring under the misapprehension that his Government are implementing the Dearing report. Conservative Members believe in implementing the Dearing report; Labour Members are imposing £5,500 of extra debt on students from low-income families, contrary to the Dearing report's recommendations.
  Since last July, the Government's approach to higher education policy has been a catalogue of disasters. As we shall see tomorrow, the Government have a slight problem with TESSAs, and a problem with implementation of higher education policy. Their botched attempt to reverse the Dearing proposals has not commanded the consent or agreement of people in the higher education world. We had the absolute fiasco of the gap year last summer. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State says it was not a fiasco. We had an enjoyable few weeks, beginning with a Department for Education and Employment press notice which referred to scaremongering. Within 10 days, Ministers had backed down and accepted that the scares were genuine.
  We also had a complete muddle in Scotland. I am pleased to see the Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office, the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), in the Chamber. He found money in his budget to look after fourth-year Scottish students in Scottish universities, but his colleagues from England and Wales were unable to find similar funds to help English and Welsh students at Scottish universities. It would be a pleasure to hear his comments on the measures which, I fear, he will support.
  The position is simple. We support Dearing and we believe Dearing is the right way forward. We greatly regret that the Government have failed to act on a report when they were happy to agree to setting it up when they were in opposition.
  9.45 pm
  The Minister for School Standards (Mr. Stephen Byers): This has been a useful and wide-ranging debate. I particularly welcome the debut speech from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis). I disagreed with much of what he said, but he said it well and we look forward to engaging in further debates with him in Committee.

  1041
  The debate has focused on access to high-quality higher education. Some of my hon. Friends have disagreed with the Government's position and on how we achieve greater access. The debate has focused on student support, but it would be a mistake to take the view that the only issue in relation to access is the student support regime. In reality, access to higher education is about high standards in schools and ensuring that there will be a proper bridge of support for those between the ages of 16 and 19, when, all too often, there is a barrier for many of the young people about whom we are concerned.
  Those issues are relevant to the Bill, but one other issue that was only touched on is, we feel, of particular importance—the right to study. For the first time, 100,000 16 to 17-year-olds in work will be provided with the entitlement to a day off a week—to answer the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor)—for further study, providing them with the opportunity to further their education.
  The Bill does more than that. It addresses the issue of school standards through a general teaching council, a mandatory qualification for headship, induction arrangements for new teachers and the inspection of teacher training.
  I want to refer briefly to the issues raised in the debate. If, in the time available, I fail to address all the questions raised in the debate, I will write to right hon. and hon. Members to address their questions.
  The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) had some concerns about the general teaching council. My hon. Friends were generally supportive of our proposals in the Bill; I should say the Bill as unamended by the House of Lords. I will outline the approach that the Government will take to the changes made in the House of Lords as far as the general teaching council is concerned.
  In response to the point made by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire, I take this opportunity to confirm that the Government intend that the majority of members of the general teaching council will be teachers. We shall invite the council to work closely with the Government, the Teacher Training Agency, Ofsted and local education authorities, as we believe that we all have a common objective—to raise school standards.
  The hon. Members for Harrogate and Knaresborough and for Bath (Mr. Foster) asked about the details of the composition of the council. We shall shortly publish a consultation paper on that, which I hope will allow us and other interested parties to address the issues that we have discussed this evening.
  I want the general teaching council to be a powerful and unified voice for the teaching profession. We want to give it genuine powers, and we have considered in detail the extra responsibilities that have been included in the Bill as a result of the Lords amendments.
  We do not believe that the council should have more than an advisory role in barring cases—when teachers are barred from the classroom in child protection cases. Giving full power to the council would fragment an effective child protection arrangement and would give highly sensitive powers over child protection to an untried and untested body. The intentions behind the Lords amendments were admirable, but the effect in practice
  1042
  would be at best questionable, and at worst dangerous. The Government would be irresponsible to accept the amendments, and we shall not.
  We shall table Government amendments in Committee to give the council power to decide cases involving professional misconduct, a point which was raised by the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell). On reflection, we believe that those matters should be considered by the council. Although we rule out involvement in child protection matters, which we believe should continue to be determined by the Secretary of State, we believe that the council should have real powers, and so we shall give it powers over, rather than an advisory role in, professional misconduct matters. That will be an important start to the work of the general teaching council. Over time, as it is tried and tested, the House will want to consider giving it further powers.
  Hon. Members gave a broad welcome to the mandatory qualification for head teachers. We are concerned that, in the latest report by Her Majesty's chief inspector, more than 3,000 serving teachers were felt not to be giving effective and proper leadership to their schools. Where possible, we want to involve those head teachers in proper training, so that they can improve their performance.
  We also believe that it is the responsibility of an individual governing body to remove from a leadership position a head teacher who is incompetent. It is unacceptable to have incompetent head teachers in post. Head teachers have a crucial role to play—a head has to be an effective leader of his or her school—which is why it is so important that we ensure that everyone who aspires to headship has a proper qualification.
  Again, hon. Members gave a general welcome to the proposal on induction for new teachers. It is right and proper that people entering the profession should have support in their first year. I can announce that, in the first year of a teacher's professional life, he or she will receive a 10 per cent. reduction in timetabled hours—that will help individual teachers to make the best of that important start to their career.
  Most hon. Members also gave a broad welcome to the proposals on the inspection of teacher training. It is important that teacher training institutions offer high-quality training, but we are not convinced that that is always the case at the moment. We believe that the chief inspector should have powers to inspect and intervene in the vocational aspects of teacher training.
  For understandable reasons, tonight's debate has been dominated by the issue of higher education and student support. We do not have free higher education at present: many people—part-time and Open university students, and others—struggle with great difficulty to fund their way through courses. Only a minority receive full funding.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon), for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden), for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) and for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) expressed deep concern about how we can continue to support students in a way that will not adversely affect access to education, especially among young people from low-income families. We are confident that our proposals will open up access to higher education, and we do not believe that they are incompatible with those made by Sir Ron Dearing, as he then was.

  1043
  The Dearing report contained 93 recommendations. We made it clear in our election manifesto that
  "The costs of student maintenance should be repaid by graduates on an income-related basis".
  That is as clear as it can be. That was the basis on which we fought the general election campaign. The Bill delivers that manifesto commitment: another manifesto commitment delivered by this Government.
  We want to build on the Dearing recommendations. Sir Ron Dearing recommended that all students should pay a tuition fee. We do not agree with that, as we believe that those on low incomes need to be protected. The arrangements in the Bill will achieve that. Hon. Members referred to a £1,000 contribution towards the costs of tuition, but those youngsters from families with a gross income of less than £23,000 will make no contribution—not a penny—towards those costs.
  Our manifesto made our position on the maintenance grant clear. We intend to provide public subsidy to students when they need it: when they are at college on a course. That subsidy will be delivered via a loan that will be repaid when the young person starts to earn. It is worth remembering that graduates earn on average 20 per cent. more than the average income. Graduates will be able to repay the loan that the Government will have given them. That is a good way of extending access to higher education.
  The present system is not working for young people, and there has to be change. Many people will have listened with interest to the comments made by Conservative Members. The Conservative Government introduced a cap on access to higher education, denying it to thousands of young people. There was chronic underinvestment, with student funding falling by 40 per cent. between 1979 and 1995.
  There has to be change. We inherited a terrible legacy from the previous Government. Hard and difficult choices must be made. The present system fails far too many of our young people. A few are financed by the many. Men and women in low-paid jobs pay taxes for higher education, from which no one in their families, in their streets or on their estates will benefit. If we are to build a modern Britain and a decent society, that has to change—and change it will. The status quo is simply not an option.
  The Bill will deliver two more manifesto commitments. It will play a key part in raising standards in our schools and it will form part of our radical reforming agenda for education. I commend it to the House.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 139, Noes 347.

  Division No. 213]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Brady, Graham

  Amess, David

  Brazier, Julian

  Arbuthnot, James

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Beggs, Roy

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Burns, Simon

  Bercow, John

  Butterfill, John

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Cash, William

  Blunt, Crispin

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Boswell, Tim

  Chope, Christopher

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Clappison, James

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  1044

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  John Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Major, Rt Hon

  Collins, Tim

  Malins, Humfrey

  Colvin, Michael

  Mates, Michael

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Cran, James

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Day, Stephen

  Ottaway, Richard

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Page, Richard

  Duncan, Alan

  Paice, James

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Paterson, Owen

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Pickles, Eric

  Evans, Nigel

  Prior, David

  Faber, David

  Randall, John

  Fallon, Michael

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Flight, Howard

  Robathan, Andrew

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Fraser, Christopher

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Garnier, Edward

  Ruffley, David

  Gibb, Nick

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Gill, Christopher

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Gray, James

  Soames, Nicholas

  Green, Damian

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Greenway, John

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Grieve, Dominic

  Spring, Richard

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Steen, Anthony

  Hammond, Philip

  Streeter, Gary

  Hawkins, Nick

  Swayne, Desmond

  Heald, Oliver

  Syms, Robert

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Horam, John

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Townend, John

  Hunter, Andrew

  Tredinnick, David

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Trend, Michael

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Viggers, Peter

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Walter, Robert

  Key, Robert

  Wardle, Charles

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Wells, Bowen

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Whittingdale, John

  Lansley, Andrew

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Leigh, Edward

  Wilkinson, John

  Letwin, Oliver

  Willetts, David

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Lidington, David

  Woodward, Shaun

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Yeo, Tim

  Loughton, Tim

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Mr. John M. Taylor and

  Sir David Madel.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Ballard, Mrs Jackie

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Banks, Tony

  Ainger, Nick

  Barnes, Harry

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Barron, Kevin

  Allan, Richard

  Battle, John

  Allen, Graham

  Bayley, Hugh

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Beard, Nigel

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Ashton, Joe

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Baker, Norman

  Benton, Joe

  1045

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Berry, Roger

  Doran, Frank

  Blackman, Liz

  Dowd, Jim

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Drew, David

  Blizzard, Bob

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Boateng, Paul

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Borrow, David

  Edwards, Huw

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Efford, Clive

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Ennis, Jeff

  Brake, Tom

  Etherington, Bill

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Fatchett, Derek

  Breed, Colin

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Flint, Caroline

  Browne, Desmond

  Flynn, Paul

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Follett, Barbara

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Burden, Richard

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Burgon, Colin

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Burnett, John

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Burstow, Paul

  Fyfe, Maria

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Galbraith, Sam

  Byers, Stephen

  Gapes, Mike

  Caborn, Richard

  Gardiner, Barry

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Campbell—Savours, Dale

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Cann, Jamie

  Godman, Norman A

  Casale, Roger

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Cawsey, Ian

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Gorrie, Donald

  Chaytor, David

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Chidgey, David

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Church, Ms Judith

  Grogan, John

  Clapham, Michael

  Hain, Peter

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Clelland, David

  Hancock, Mike

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hanson, David

  Coaker, Vernon

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Harvey, Nick

  Coleman, Iain

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Colman, Tony

  Healey, John

  Connarty, Michael

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Corbett, Robin

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Heppell, John

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Hesford, Stephen

  Cotter, Brian

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Cousins, Jim

  Hill, Keith

  Cranston, Ross

  Hinchliffe, David

  Crausby, David

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Hoey, Kate

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Home Robertson, John

  Cummings, John

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Hope, Phil

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Darvill, Keith

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Davidson, Ian

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Hurst, Alan

  Denham, John

  Hutton, John

  Dismore, Andrew

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Dobbin, Jim

  Ingram, Adam

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  1046

  Jenkins, Brian

  Morley, Elliot

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Mudie, George

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Mullin, Chris

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Norris, Dan

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Oaten, Mark

  Keetch, Paul

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Kemp, Fraser

  Olner, Bill

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Khabra, Piara S

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Kidney, David

  Pearson, Ian

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Pendry, Tom

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Pike, Peter L

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Plaskitt, James

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Pond, Chris

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Pope, Greg

  Lepper, David

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Levitt, Tom

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Linton, Martin

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Livingstone, Ken

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Livsey, Richard

  Radice, Giles

  Lock, David

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Love, Andrew

  Rendel, David

  McAllion, John

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Rogers, Allan

  McCabe, Steve

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Rowlands, Ted

  McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

  Roy, Frank

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Macdonald, Calum

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  McDonnell, John

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  McFall, John

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Sanders, Adrian

  McIsaac, Shona

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Sawford, Phil

  McLeish, Henry

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McNulty, Tony

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  MacShane, Denis

  Singh, Marsha

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mc Walter, Tony

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  McWilliam, John

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Mandelson, Peter

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

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

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Snape, Peter

  Martlew, Eric

  Soley, Clive

  Maxton, John

  Spellar, John

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Meale, Alan

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Merron, Gillian

  Stevenson, George

  Michael, Alun

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Stott, Roger

  Milburn, Alan

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Miller, Andrew

  Stringer, Graham

  Moffatt, Laura

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Moore, Michael

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Timms, Stephen

  1047

  Tipping, Paddy

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Touhig, Don

  Willis, Phil

  Trickett, Jon

  Wills, Michael

  Truswell, Paul

  Wilson, Brian

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Winnick, David

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Wise, Audrey

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Wood, Mike

  Tyler, Paul

  Woolas, Phil

  Vaz, Keith

  Worthington, Tony

  Wallace, James

  Wray, James

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Watts, David

  Wyatt, Derek

  Webb, Steve

  White, Brian

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Mr. Clive Betts and

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Mr. David Jamieson.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 62 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading):—
  The House divided: Ayes 290, Noes 51.

  Division No. 214]

  [10.15 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Ainger, Nick

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Chaytor, David

  Allen, Graham

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Church, Ms Judith

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Ashton, Joe

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Clelland, David

  Banks, Tony

  Coaker, Vernon

  Barron, Kevin

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Battle, John

  Coleman, Iain

  Bayley, Hugh

  Colman, Tony

  Beard, Nigel

  Connarty, Michael

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Cooper, Yvette

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Corbett, Robin

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Benton, Joe

  Cranston, Ross

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Crausby, David

  Berry, Roger

  Cummings, John

  Best, Harold

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Blackman, Liz

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Dalyell, Tam

  Blizzard, Bob

  Darvill, Keith

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Boateng, Paul

  Davidson, Ian

  Borrow, David

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Denham, John

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Browne, Desmond

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Doran, Frank

  Burden, Richard

  Dowd, Jim

  Burgon, Colin

  Drew, David

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Byers, Stephen

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Caborn, Richard

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Edwards, Huw

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Efford, Clive

  Campbell—Savours, Dale

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Cann, Jamie

  Ennis, Jeff

  Casale, Roger

  1048

  Etherington, Bill

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Linton, Martin

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Lock, David

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Love, Andrew

  Flint, Caroline

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Follett, Barbara

  McCabe, Steve

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Galbraith, Sam

  Macdonald, Calum

  Gapes, Mike

  McFall, John

  Gardiner, Barry

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Godman, Norman A

  McLeish, Henry

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  McNulty, Tony

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  MacShane, Denis

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McWalter, Tony

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McWilliam, John

  Grogan, John

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hain, Peter

  Mandelson, Peter

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hanson, David

  Martlew, Eric

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Maxton, John

  Healey, John

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Meale, Alan

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Merron, Gillian

  Heppell, John

  Michael, Alun

  Hesford, Stephen

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Milburn, Alan

  Hill, Keith

  Miller, Andrew

  Hinchliffe, David

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hoey, Kate

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Home Robertson, John

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Morley, Elliot

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Hope, Phil

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Mudie, George

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Mullin, Chris

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Hurst, Alan

  Norris, Dan

  Hutton, John

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Ingram, Adam

  Olner, Bill

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Jenkins, Brian

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Pearson, Ian

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Pendry, Tom

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Pike, Peter L

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Plaskitt, James

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Pond, Chris

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Pope, Greg

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Khabra, Piara S

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Kidney, David

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Radice, Giles

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Rogers, Allan

  Lepper, David

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Rowlands, Ted

  Levitt, Tom

  Roy, Frank

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  1049

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Tipping, Paddy

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Touhig, Don

  Sawford, Phil

  Trickett, Jon

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Truswell, Paul

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Singh, Marsha

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Vaz, Keith

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Watts, David

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  White, Brian

  Snape, Peter

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Soley, Clive

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Spellar, John

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Wills, Michael

  Stevenson, George

  Wilson, Brian

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Wood, Mike

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Woolas, Phil

  Stott, Roger

  Worthington, Tony

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Wray, James

  Stringer, Graham

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Taylor, Ms Dan (Stockton S)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Timms, Stephen

  Mr. David Jamieson and

  Mr. Clive Betts.

  NOES

  Allan, Richard

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Baker, Norman

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Ballard, Mrs Jackie

  Keetch, Paul

  Beggs, Roy

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Livsey, Richard

  Brake, Tom

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Breed, Colin

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Moore, Michael

  Burnett, John

  Oaten, Mark

  Burstow, Paul

  Öpik, Lembit

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Rendel, David

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Chidgey, David

  Salmond, Alex

  Cotter, Brian

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

  Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Swinney, John

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Wallace, James

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Webb, Steve

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Welsh, Andrew

  Gorrie, Donald

  Willis, Phil

  Hancock, Mike

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Harvey, Nick

  Mr. Paul Tyler and

  Mr. Adrian Sanders.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
  That, at this day's sitting, the Nuclear Explosions (Prohibition and Inspections) Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Pope.]
  Question agreed to.

  TEACHING AND HIGHER EDUCATION BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Teaching and Higher Education Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (1) any sums required for the making by the Secretary of State of grants or loans under the Act;

  (2) any other expenses of the Secretary of State under the Act; and

  (3) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums so payable by virtue of any other Act.—[Mr. Pope.]

  The House divided: Ayes 251, Noes 50.

  Division No. 215]

  [10.28 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Ainger, Nick

  Cummings, John

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Allen, Graham

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Darvill, Keith

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Banks, Tony

  Davidson, Ian

  Barnes, Harry

  Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

  Barron, Kevin

  Dawson, Hilton

  Bayley, Hugh

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Beard, Nigel

  Dismore, Andrew

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Dobbin, Jim

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Berry, Roger

  Doran, Frank

  Best, Harold

  Dowd, Jim

  Blackman, Liz

  Drew, David

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Boateng, Paul

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Borrow, David

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Edwards, Huw

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Efford, Clive

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Ennis, Jeff

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Etherington, Bill

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Browne, Desmond

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Burden, Richard

  Flint, Caroline

  Burgon, Colin

  Follett, Barbara

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Byers, Stephen

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Gapes, Mike

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Gardiner, Barry

  Cann, Jamie

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Casale, Roger

  Gerrard, Neil

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Chaytor, David

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Godman, Norman A

  Clapham, Michael

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Clelland, David

  Grogan, John

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hain, Peter

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Coleman, Iain

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Colman, Tony

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Connarty, Michael

  Hanson, David

  Cooper, Yvette

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Healey, John

  Cranston, Ross

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Crausby, David

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Heppell, John

  Hesford, Stephen

  1051

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hill, Keith

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Home Robertson, John

  Martlew, Eric

  Hood, Jimmy

  Maxton, John

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Meale, Alan

  Hope, Phil

  Merron, Gillian

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Michael, Alun

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Milburn, Alan

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Miller, Andrew

  Hurst, Alan

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hutton, John

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Jenkins, Brian

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Mudie, George

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Mullin, Chris

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Kemp, Fraser

  Norris, Dan

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Khabra, Piara S

  Olner, Bill

  Kidney, David

  O'Neill, Martin

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Pearson, Ian

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Pendry, Tom

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Pickthall, Colin

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Pike, Peter L

  Lepper, David

  Plaskitt, James

  Leslie, Christopher

  Pond, Chris

  Levitt, Tom

  Pope, Greg

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Linton, Martin

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Livingstone, Ken

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Lock, David

  Quinn, Lawrie

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Radice, Giles

  McCabe, Steve

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Rowlands, Ted

  McFall, John

  Roy, Frank

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  McIsaac, Shona

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  McNulty, Tony

  Savidge, Malcolm

  MacShane, Denis

  Sawford, Phil

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Singh, Marsha

  McWalter, Tony

  Skinner, Dennis

  McWilliam, John

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  1052

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Soley, Clive

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Spellar, John

  Vaz, Keith

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Wareing, Robert N

  Stevenson, George

  Watts, David

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  White, Brian

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Stringer, Graham

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Wills, Michael

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Wise, Audrey

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Wood, Mike

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Woolas, Phil

  Timms, Stephen

  Wray, James

  Tipping, Paddy

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Touhig, Don

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Trickett, Jon

  Truswell, Paul

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Mr. Clive Betts and

  Mr. David Jamieson.

  NOES

  Allan, Richard

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Baker, Norman

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Ballard, Mrs Jackie

  Keetch, Paul

  Beggs, Roy

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Livsey, Richard

  Brake, Tom

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Breed, Colin

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Moore, Michael

  Burnett, John

  Oaten, Mark

  Burstow, Paul

  Öpik, Lembit

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Rendel, David

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Chidgey, David

  Salmond, Alex

  Cotter, Brian

  Sanders, Adrian

  Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)

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

  Dafis, Cynog

  Swinney, John

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Wallace, James

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Webb, Steve

  Gorrie, Donald

  Welsh, Andrew

  Hancock, Mike

  Willis, Phil

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Harvey, Nick

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Mr. Paul Tyler and

  Mr. Edward Davey.

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  Nuclear Explosions (Prohibition and Inspections) Bill [Lords]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Jane Kennedy.]
  10.39 pm
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett): The Bill will enable the United Kingdom to ratify the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty, which bans any nuclear weapons test explosion and any other nuclear explosion. We made it clear on several occasions during the passage of the Bill that it is, for the most part, highly technical, but that does not detract from the importance of a treaty that is the culmination of almost 40 years of effort. As its preamble makes clear, the treaty will constrain the development and qualitative improvement of nuclear weapons, and will end the development of advanced new types of nuclear weapons.
  I want to place on the record our appreciation for the support of the main Opposition parties. On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Faber) said that we should thank the previous Foreign Secretary for his work on this issue, and I am happy to do so. Given the much-reported bitterness on Europe between Sir Malcolm Rifkind and the current shadow Foreign Secretary, it may be wiser for me rather than the hon. Member for Westbury to offer thanks.
  To ensure that the provisions are properly observed, the treaty establishes a number of new international bodies and an international monitoring system, which will consist of a worldwide network of monitoring stations at locations that were agreed by scientific experts. Those stations will use various technologies to detect, identify and locate the source of a suspicious event anywhere in the world. The data from the stations will be transmitted to an international data centre in Vienna, and made available to states parties.
  The treaty has now been signed by 149 states and ratified by nine. Of the 44 states whose ratification is a pre-condition for the treaty's entry into force, only India, Pakistan and North Korea have yet to sign. We are doing everything that we can to encourage all three states to sign and to ratify the treaty, and we are working for entry into force at the earliest possible date.
  In the meantime, the treaty has created a strong moral and political norm against nuclear testing. The international monitoring system will, in due course, provide a further practical deterrent to nuclear testing, ensuring that any breaches will be detected.
  The United Kingdom has played an important role in the formulation of the treaty. The United Kingdom is one of the states whose ratification is a pre-condition for the treaty's entry into force. The United Kingdom and its overseas territories will host a number of the monitoring stations. The United Kingdom signed the treaty on the first day that it opened for signature. The Government want to further that record by being among the first states to ratify the treaty.
  1054
  In our manifesto, we committed ourselves to working for a nuclear-weapons-free world. In our strategic defence review, we are examining how to take that commitment forward. The Bill is a step towards achieving our overall objective, and I commend it to the House.
  10.43 pm
  Mr. David Faber: I thank the Minister for opening the debate on Third Reading. This is his first outing on the Bill, and we are glad to see him on the Treasury Bench. As he said, the Bill has had the Opposition's full support not only in another place but on its Second Reading and in Committee.
  We are grateful to the Minister for giving us details of the monitoring arrangements. We had not heard that some of the monitoring stations will be in British overseas territories. I am sure that, in future, we shall wish to ask some questions on the location and capacity of those stations.
  In the longer term and in the wider sphere, the Bill is vital legislation, designed to restrict and, ultimately, to eliminate development of nuclear capacity around the world. I am grateful to the Minister for paying tribute to the previous Government, even though his remarks about the former Foreign Secretary, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, were somewhat churlish. On 24 September 1996, my former right hon. and learned Friend signed the treaty in New York. I should like to pay tribute also to my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis)—who is in the Chamber—who was instrumental in the British Government's part in negotiating the treaty.
  The Bill is part of the wider ratification process on the treaty. The full support of all the signatory states will be crucial to the long-term success of the non-proliferation treaty. Although we do not pretend that the Bill alone is the answer to nuclear non-proliferation, we are pleased—we echo the Minister's comments—that the United Kingdom has embarked so speedily on the ratification process.
  In Committee, we were told that 149 countries had signed the treaty and that eight countries had ratified it. Today, we have been told that 149 countries have signed it and that nine have now ratified it. Like the United Kingdom, other countries will be going through the ratification process.
  As the Minister said, 44 named states are required to ratify the treaty for it to come into force. Although the vast majority of countries have signed the treaty, those that have signed but not ratified are considered by the rest of the international community to be bound already by its terms.
  The Minister—like the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) in the debate on Second Reading—skirted over the issue of three particular countries that have yet to sign the treaty but that are among the 44 that are required to do so. It is important to express the Opposition's concern about the position of North Korea, of Pakistan and especially of India.
  North Korea is still developing and improving its ballistic missile capability, and the country's instability—especially its economic instability—is of some concern. Pakistan has stated its intention of waiting on India's decision and on determining India's future nuclear capacity.

  1055
  During the Bill's Committee stage, we were in the immediate aftermath of the Indian general election, and the Minister was unable to comment on the position of the new Indian Government. However, in recent weeks, it seems likely that the Indian Government's position on the issue of signing the treaty will have hardened. Opposition Members hope that the Government will do all that they can to place pressure on the Indian Government to persuade them that the treaty is important and that they should sign and ratify it.
  The Minister did not mention—as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and I did in the Second Reading debate—the attitude of the United States, where there is considerable hostility, within the Senate and Congress generally, to ratifying the treaty. It is important to stress the need for the United States to send a strong signal to the rest of the world to follow as soon as possible the United Kingdom and other countries in signing and ratifying the treaty.
  We realise that the Government will continue to do what they can to press for worldwide ratification, and we shall of course support them in that aim. The Bill marks the end of our own ratification process. I assume that it will subsequently, after Third Reading, be further ratified in a statutory instrument. Not only is our ratification of the treaty an important step for the United Kingdom, but it will send a signal to the rest of the world. As such, we are pleased to support Third Reading.
  10.48 pm
  Mr. David Heath: I rise with some trepidation, not only because of the lateness of the hour—I do not wish to tire the House—but because of the attitude that was expressed in the debate on the Bill's Second Reading when I said that I whole-heartedly welcome the Government's speedy introduction of the Bill. I said also that I hoped that the Bill would make fast progress, and that it was an historic Bill which would achieve a long-desired result. I was told by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) that I had been—to use the word of the evening—"churlish". I do not know what superlatives I am required to employ to overcome my naturally curmudgeonly nature, but I repeat that we whole-heartedly support the Bill and congratulate the Government on introducing it.
  Some questions remain to be answered, not necessarily by the Government, and the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Faber) has already alluded to some of them. The process of signatories and ratification does not lie at the door of the Government. Nevertheless, it is an extremely complicated and rigorous process and there are significant concerns about countries that are either not signatories or have failed to ratify the treaty.
  The hon. Member for Westbury has already mentioned America. I was with the Foreign Affairs Committee in Washington last week and I still have grave concerns about the position of the Senate. There is no doubt about the position of the Administration, who want the treaty ratified. However, the Senate has its own views on the enlargement of NATO, the funding of the United Nations and the treaty. We need to use all our powers of persuasion on individual members of the Senate to ensure that they agree to the ratification of the treaty.
  1056
  There are equally major concerns about the three countries that are not signatories, and I accept that there is probably very little that we can do about North Korea. However, in respect of India and Pakistan, there are mechanisms through the Commonwealth, and I should be pleased if the Minister would outline the steps that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has taken over recent weeks to ensure that our message is getting through to India and Pakistan. The Government are unusually coy about what they have done. I am sure that there has been a great deal of movement behind the scenes and it would be nice if some of it were to come out in the Minister's reply to the debate.
  On Second Reading and in Committee, we expressed our views about the dangers of sub-critical testing and whether qualitative improvements undermine the views of the rest of the world about what exactly the nuclear powers are doing and whether they are acting within the spirit of the treaty.
  I was gratified to hear what the Minister said about the way forward and his clearly expressed intent to reduce the availability of nuclear weapons throughout the world. I hope that the Government will make a clear statement of their intent by saying that they do not wish to increase the number of warheads on the Trident replacement of Polaris so that Britain gives a clear signal to the rest of the world that we match our words with actions.
  The Bill is important and has our whole-hearted support. We look forward to ratification and the diplomatic initiative that we are sure the Government will take to ensure that the treaty is signed and ratified by as many nations as possible.
  10.52 pm
  Mr. David Davis: I join right hon. and hon. Members in welcoming the Bill. I should also like to reiterate one point to the Minister.
  Had it not been for the British Government's stance in the negotiations on the treaty, it is quite likely that an attempt would have been made to base it on a P5-only signatory list. It was very much Britain's stance that led to the current signatory list. It is no accident, as the Minister well understands, that the three countries that have not signed are North Korea, India and Pakistan. I hope that the Minister will reinforce the commitment of the British Government to use every available means to ensure that North Korea and India in particular—as Pakistan will follow—are brought within the treaty.
  The Government like to talk about an ethical foreign policy. This is a good example of an ethical foreign policy in action, and I should like to hear the Minister reinforce that point of view.
  10.53 pm
  Mr. Fatchett: With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall try to respond to the points that have been raised. I thought that the speech of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) was far from churlish. It was a splendid example of consensual politics. The only thing missing was approval of the Minister's excellent speech. Apart from that, the hon. Gentleman did extremely well. I shall certainly reprimand my colleague who, on Second Reading, described him as churlish.

  1057
  I congratulate the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) on his part in the negotiation process that led to the treaty. I have put on record our thanks to Sir Malcolm Rifkind. I am happy to put on record our thanks to the right hon. Gentleman as well.
  Two crucial points have been raised in our short debate. The hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Faber) asked about the United Kingdom contribution towards the monitoring process. It may be useful if I put the extent of that on the record. Our contribution is significant: the existing seismic array at Eskdalemuir in the United Kingdom; the radionuclide stations in the British Indian Ocean Territory, St. Helena, Tristan da Cunha, Halley island and Antarctica and a radionuclide laboratory in the United Kingdom; hydroacoustic stations in the British Indian ocean territory and in Tristan da Cunha; and infrasound stations in the British Indian Ocean Territory, Tristan da Cunha, Ascension island and Bermuda. We are making a substantial contribution towards monitoring.
  The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden said, I think in approval, that the Government have a strong ethical dimension to our foreign policy. Those monitoring commitments contribute to that strong ethical dimension. I am delighted to have the approval of the right hon. Gentleman. He should use his persuasive skills to ensure that those on the Conservative Front Bench show the same consensual approach.
  The hon. Members for Westbury and for Somerton and Frome asked about the three countries that have not yet signed—North Korea, India and Pakistan. Living in the paranoid world that the Liberals have occupied for many years, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome asked us to let him into the secrets of what the Government have been doing. Only the Liberals could turn that into a profound state secret. We have been lobbying hard with those Governments. Our diplomatic effort on this important issue is aimed at persuading them to sign. It is important that they should do so. There is no secret about that. It is our wish, the wish of the House and the wish of the international community to get those countries on board.
  The treaty is important. It has support across the House of Commons. I am delighted that the Bill is about achieve its Third Reading.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with an amendment.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): 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),

  REFERENDUM
  That the draft Greater London Authority (Referendum Arrangements) Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 10th March, be approved.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
  That the Special Grant Report (No. 32): Special Grant for Accommodation for Evacuees from Montserrat (HC 549), which was laid before this House on 11th February, be approved.—[Jane Kennedy.]
  Question agreed to.

  Private Hire Vehicles (London) Bill [Ways and Means]
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

  (1) the charging of fees payable by the holders of licences granted under the Act;

  (2) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—[Jane Kennedy.]

  10.57 pm
  Mr. Eric Forth: The measure is important, because it involves not just money, but many people's livelihoods. It is odd that nobody seems to want to come to the House to explain why we should vote for the motion. The debate is in danger of being back to front. In the normal course of events, someone with an interest in the issue—who knows?—would come along and argue in the House for the motion to be agreed to.
  The motion would authorise
  "the charging of fees payable by the holders of licences granted under the Act"
  and
  "the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund."
  In other words—were the Bill ever to become law—we are talking about fees chargeable to people operating private cabs in London. That raises a whole number of questions to which, I would have thought, we would want to know the answers before we proceeded very much further. I hope that the Minister will be able to provide them at some stage in the debate so that the House can consider whether it wishes to approve the measure.
  The very obvious first question is what level of fees we are talking about. That will have an effect on the people whom the measure seeks to regulate. Self-evidently, if the fees were set too high, people would almost certainly be deterred from seeking a licence, as provided for in the Bill, which would in turn lead to a sharp diminution in the number of people offering minicab services in London. Some important consequences flow from that—not just for the people involved, who are a vital part of our enterprise culture. They enter business at the most basic level to provide a service which, patently, is required and very much valued by certain sectors of society. The users of the service would also suffer were the fees set at an excessive level.
  That point raises an important question about the philosophy behind the setting of fees. Would they be set at a token level? Would they somehow be related to the number of people who were deemed to be operating the service? We should bear in mind that it says in the Bill:
  "There are no records of how many operators, drivers or vehicles there are in the London private hire vehicle industry."
  We therefore start from the rather odd position of not knowing the population—if I can put it that way. That must give rise to enormous difficulties in trying to determine an appropriate level at which to introduce the regime, were it ever to become law. Will the fees initially be set at a relatively high or a relatively low level? That is the first question that must be answered before we can proceed any further.
  1060
  That point interplays with the money resolution, which we shall also want to debate—I hope—in some detail. The money resolution is the other side of the coin; it deals with the costs. There is inevitably a relationship between the measures. A regulatory regime—a bureaucracy—will have to be set up to administer the proposed scheme, but without us knowing how many drivers or vehicles it should cover. The question arises whether fees will be set to cover the cost.
  The Bill says:
  "It is intended that all continuing costs of administering the licensing system will be met from fees charged under the Bill."
  There is a clue: the fees will be set at a sufficient level to cover the cost. How can we know the cost if we do not know the number of operators, drivers or vehicles involved? The House faces a difficulty. We are being asked, without explanation so far, to approve a measure based on an unknown population of drivers—or vehicles—who are to be licensed. We therefore do not know the potential revenue. We cannot, therefore, know the size of the bureaucracy, a point to which I shall come in the next debate in more detail. It is, therefore, very difficult to assess the relationship between all the different variables and factors.
  I hope that the Minister will be able to give us a detailed explanation of how she envisages the regime working. Otherwise—I am sure that this is not intended—the House will be asked effectively to sign a blank cheque and give open authorisation for an unspecified fee regime. I fear that, if the fees were initially set at the wrong level, the regime could destroy a very valuable service sector in the economy of London.
  The service is important because it provides basic transport to those on relatively low incomes. Those of us on higher incomes can use black cabs, but there is a huge demand for the service offered by the vehicles covered by the Bill. The fees charged will be critical in determining whether we encourage this sector, or risk throttling it by setting the fees too high.
  The number of vehicles—which we do not know—will determine the size of the bureaucracy. As the Bill tells us that the costs are to be covered, the initial fees may be unduly high and may contribute to reducing the number of licensees. We know none of the underpinning details, and no one has come to the House to explain them. [Interruption.] I am hearing noises from Ministers on the Treasury Bench.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I want to hear noises only from the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful for your encouragement, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I will seek to respond to it.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. But not repetitive noises.
  Mr. Forth: Indeed not.
  Clause 20 says:
  "The Secretary of State may by regulations provide for prescribed fees to be payable".

  1061
  One's heart leaps, as one imagines that this gives us a clue as to the level of fees. However, one finds that the fees will be payable

  "(a) by an applicant for a licence under this Act, or for the variation of a London operator's licence under section 18, on making the application;

  (b) by a person granted a licence or variation".

  The Bill continues:
  "Regulations under this section may provide for fees to be payable by instalments"—
  a hint that the fees may be on the high side—
  "or for fees to be remitted or refunded (in whole or part) in prescribed cases."
  Clause 20 does not help, and suggests that the fees may be set at a high level. That confirms my worst fears. If a Minister decides to set the fee at a high level to cover the bureaucratic costs, the number of applicants may be reduced. The Bill states of the financial effects:
  "It is intended that all continuing costs of administering the licensing system will be met from fees".
  What will happen if the situation I have described occurs?
  Mr. David Davis: This is a rather specialised case of a general problem facing the Government. Everybody accepts that over-regulation is a problem in any modern western society.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that he should not be having a conversation with the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). He should speak to the Chair.
  Mr. Davis: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) was making a specific point about an important issue in western society—the control of the level of regulations. If the House agrees to the Ways and Means motion, that control will be completely given away. By imposing no limit on the money that can be raised, we shall put no limit on the bureaucracy that can be imposed on the industry.
  Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend makes an important point, but I think that the matter goes further. He touches on another possibility that I wanted to mention—that the regime could become a covert method of raising revenue for any purpose.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Angela Eagle): Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether, if he is so opposed to the regulation of the licensed minicab trade in London, which is the subject of the Bill, he would abolish the licensing system that operates effectively in every other town and city?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not respond to that intervention, which goes well beyond the scope of the Ways and Means resolution that we are discussing.
  Mr. Forth: I will, of course, adhere to your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the Minister tempts me on another occasion, I may succumb, but not when your beady eye is on me.
  1062
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) made an important point. We need to know much more about the intended relationship between the fee level, the revenues raised by the fees and the cost of the bureaucracy. We also need to know the effect on the number of licensees and whether the fees raised will exceed the costs, which could provide a temptation to a Secretary of State who wanted to raise revenues for other purposes. We want the Minister to guarantee that the regime will not be used as a money-raising facility.
  As I keep having to remind the House, this aspect of the Bill has not been explained—we are flying blind, and I can raise these issues only in a fog—but it would help if the Minister could tell us whether she can guarantee that in no circumstances will the fees be used as a pretext to raise revenues beyond what will be needed to pay for the costs of the bureaucracy.
  That point also raises the question whether the bureaucracy will be sensitive to the number of operators. In fairness, I must concede that, as the Bill suggests, we do not know how many operators there are, so there will have to be some initial guesswork about the size of the bureaucracy. However, at some point, we shall be able to determine the numbers, and whether they are increasing. We shall then be able to set the fee more accurately.
  We need to know much more about the measure before we can give it our approval. I hope that the Minister can answer some of my questions, and give an idea of the Government's general approach to the matter. I also hope that she can say how she envisages that the regulations that will flow from the Ways and Means resolution will operate in detail.
  11.12 pm
  Mr. Tom Brake: Liberal Democrats are also surprised that the Minister has chosen not to come to the House to explain the details of the Ways and Means resolution and perhaps pre-empt some of the points raised by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). [HON. MEMBERS: "The Minister is here."] I mean the Financial Secretary, in whose name the motion was tabled.
  I hope that the Minister will consider hypothecating the charges for transport—specifically for public transport—expenditure. The funding of transport in London is a matter of conjecture and concern, and hypothecation of the charges could contribute a small sum towards public transport improvements, albeit we do not know the sum involved. We will support the resolution, but I hope that the Minister will respond on hypothecation.
  11.14 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Angela Eagle): First, let me explain that the resolution relates to a private Member's Bill, promoted by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), who is not here tonight. It is also clear that—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps, in fairness to the Bill's promoter, I should say that a letter has been sent on his behalf saying that he originally expected the matter

  1063
  to be dealt with on a previous day and that, as he is with the armed forces parliamentary scheme, it was impossible for him to change his diary for tonight.
  Angela Eagle: That is a perfectly reasonable explanation, and I fear that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is to blame for—
  Mr. Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the Bill's promoter had given notice that he would be unavailable to attend the House today, why on earth was the resolution tabled today? That seems rather odd.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Ways and Means resolution is a Government item of business, as opposed to the Bill.
  Angela Eagle: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The Bill is a private Member's Bill. Should the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst want explanations of the thought behind the proposed legislation, I suggest that he talks to the Bill's promoter.
  The money resolution is entirely simple. The Bill provides for the regulation of the London minicab trade, in the interests of public safety. That should not be politically contentious. The Bill simply ensures that charges may be imposed on licence holders when licences are renewed or varied, and the money resolution provides for modest payments by the Secretary of State, arising from the Bill.
  The principle in the Bill is that the costs of regulation should be met from the fees paid by the minicab trade, but that it is prudent to ensure that the Secretary of State can, if necessary, give some assistance with start-up costs before the income from fees is available. It is a very modest money resolution, as is generally the case with private Members' legislation. I hope that the House will approve it.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I am a sponsor of the Bill, and I think that
  1064
  the Minister was discourteous, to say the least, not to reply to the perfectly proper intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake). This is a Government Ways and Means resolution, tabled in the name of a Treasury Minister, and the Government should give account for it; the fact that the Bill is a private Member's Bill is an entirely separate matter.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington asked whether the money would be ring-fenced. The resolution says that the money goes into the Consolidated Fund, with the implication that it could be spent on other things. My hon. Friend and I would not want that to happen. We, and most hon. Members, want the money to be spent only on transport in London. I hope that the Minister will reconsider her decision not to respond. I hope that, if she knows the answer, she will give it, and that, if she does not know it, she will assure us that the Financial Secretary, who tabled the resolution, writes to my hon. Friend and to me.
  Angela Eagle: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the idea behind the money resolution is simply to give assistance with start-up costs before income from fees is available; it is not a massive revenue-raising measure. That, simply, is what it is about—to make the Bill, if it becomes law, operative and to give the scheme a chance to start before fees are generated to pay for regulation of a sort that happens everywhere else in the country. It is as simple as that.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

  (1) the charging of fees payable by the holders of licences granted under the Act;

  (2) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.

  Private Hire Vehicles (London) Bill [Money]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State which is attributable to the Act.—[Mr. McFall]
  11.19 pm
  Mr. Eric Forth: We have not made much progress, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have we? The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions seemed to confuse the Ways and Means resolution, which concerned fees, with the money resolution, which we are now debating and which would cover the costs arising from the Bill. Perhaps the hon. Lady will check her brief when she replies to this second debate. We are discussing the costs of the administration, or bureaucracy, which would cover the licensing regime. Again, if one looks to the explanatory memorandum in the Bill for guidance, one immediately gets into difficulty, although it does give some clue. It states:
  "It is estimated that the overall annual cost of administering and enforcing the new law will be about £4 million".
  It helpfully adds:
  "roughly twice the cost of regulating London cabs".
  It is difficult to see how that figure was arrived at, because the immediately preceding sentence states:
  "It is… difficult to predict how many"—
  vehicles or drivers—
  "will be licensed once the Bill comes into force".
  The sentence before that—I am rather bizarrely reading backwards on this occasion, but I am sure that the House can see why—states:
  "There are no records of how many operators, drivers or vehicles there are in the London private hire vehicle industry."
  Therefore, we are starting from a complete supposition.
  Presumably, both the Government and the promoter of the Bill are acting in close co-operation in this matter. The Minister did not seem to be sure whether she or the promoter should be bringing these matters to the House. However, you usefully pointed out, and I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it is the Government's responsibility to lay money and Ways and Means resolutions before the House, because only they can do so. Therefore, if it is a Government resolution, it is not unreasonable of us to expect the Government to explain it, even if it is related to a private Member's Bill.
  One of the worrying aspects of what has been happening recently—all too recently—is that more and more private Members' Bills, which almost certainly emanate from the Government in one form or another but are, perfectly honourably, picked up by private Members, have large financial implications. You must recollect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that not all that long ago few, if any, private Members' Bills—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. That may be an interesting procedural point, but we are debating the money resolution on the Private Hire
  1066
  Vehicles (London) Bill, and the hon. Gentleman's remarks must be confined to the terms of that money resolution and not others.
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful to you for your guidance, as ever, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and of course I shall adhere to it.
  This money resolution arises out of a Bill with a large number of clauses, with potentially considerable financial implications. In this case, we are expected to believe that the
  "overall annual cost…will be about £4 million".
  By its very nature, that must be a guess, because no one knows how many of the vehicles there are. When we were discussing the Ways and Means resolution, the Minister said—although I thought that she thought we were discussing the money resolution, because she used that term more than once—helpfully, and it was the only helpful thing that she told the House, that start-up costs would be involved and would have to be financed. One can readily see that there is a problem.
  I am guessing, but perhaps when the Minister gives what I hope will be a fuller explanation than we have had so far, she will tell us, as the money resolution states, that
  "it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State which is attributable to the Act."
  The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) very properly raised a matter that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) characterised as hypothecation. That is in the area of the wording of the money resolution, which states
  "it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred".
  That does not sound hypothecated; it sounds more like our old friend the blank cheque.
  I think that we are being asked to agree that whatever the cost of the bureaucracy required to set up a regime based on an unknown number of vehicles and drivers, the money will be provided by Parliament. It may be, if we are to believe the Ways and Means resolution so scantily explained by the Minister, that the fees raised under that will cover the annual cost, but we do not know. Nothing has been made clear. I heard no answer to the question of the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington.
  Once again, we are operating in unknown territory. We have a substantial private Member's Bill, a highly regulatory measure that will affect a large but unknown number of people who operate private vehicles in London and provide a service much valued by many sectors of society throughout the city. However, we are asked to vote an amount of money unknown but for the estimate of about £4 million per year, roughly twice the cost of regulating London cabs. I do not know how much further that takes us because, depending on the number of vehicles, it may be a high or a low figure. If many private cab drivers decide to try to dodge through the obstacle course set up by the Bill and abide by its bureaucracy, regulation and fees, it may be that the service would not be affected, the revenues would be substantial and it would be self-financing.
  I can equally imagine the opposite. Very many operators and vehicles could disappear from the roads, scared off by the suggested regime and the level of fees.

  1067
  Fee income would fall and we would be left with a bureaucracy that would have to remain in place but whose costs would not be covered. We would be back with the terms of this money resolution, and the House would have voted moneys for a bureaucracy that had succeeded only in diminishing an important part of London's life.
  Those are all vital questions. I have no doubt that if the Bill goes into Committee, they will be examined in great detail. I hope that they are. In the meantime, we are yet again being asked to approve something without having had any proper explanation. It defeats me why the Minister appears to want these debates to be conducted back to front. Life might have been simpler, I might not have needed to make my modest contributions and the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington might not have needed to say much, if she had given us some detail of how she envisages the measure working. We have yet to get such an explanation. We did not get it in considering the Ways and Means resolution. I wait eagerly to find out whether she will give a more satisfactory explanation under the money resolution. She has by now had time to examine her notes properly, to find out whether she should address the money resolution or the Ways and Means resolution. I hope that one way or another, she will answer my questions and satisfy the House before we are asked to approve the measure.
  11.28 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: On Second Reading, I raised an issue relevant to the motion, the work of the Public Carriage Office, an annexe to the Metropolitan police that is responsible for issuing licences for black cabs and is proposed as the body to be responsible for issuing licences for minicabs. The motion proposes that we agree that money be given by Government out of moneys provided by Parliament for expenditure linked to the measure's working. It is a perfectly normal motion.
  I should be grateful if the Minister could tell me what mechanism there is for monitoring and auditing the expenditure that we are about to authorise, so that those of us who are critical of the work of the Public Carriage Office and think that it does not do its job well and
  "needs a great kick up the backside",—[Official Report, 23 January 1998; Vol. 304, c. 1269.]
  as I said on Second Reading, can have some control, through the Government, over the money that the Bill allows it to be given. In theory, the Bill allows the PCO an unlimited amount of money, and although it will not in fact be unlimited, I want some assurance that expenditure will be properly audited and that Parliament and the taxpayer can ensure that the PCO spends our money wisely.
  11.29 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Angela Eagle): Had the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) wanted to explore in more detail some of the issues relating to the Bill, he might have turned up for Second Reading. He could have contributed to that debate and raised a series of general issues, instead of waiting for the much narrower money resolution debate. If he is so interested in the Bill, he might ask his right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) whether he can serve on the Standing Committee on the Bill. I am sure that in that way he will make a concrete contribution to the passage of the Bill through the House.
  The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) asked about how the money would be audited and the answer to his question is, in the usual way. The Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis), is present and I am sure that he would be willing to explain to the hon. Gentleman how Parliament audits the expenditure of money in the usual way. If he has other suggestions he wishes to make, that is clearly a matter for the Committee stage, so perhaps he will raise his questions with the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire as the Bill proceeds through Parliament. We are at the stage of the money resolution and all those points can still be debated.
  Question put:—
  The House proceeded to a Division—
  MR. JOHN McFALL and MR. JON OWEN JONES were appointed Tellers for the Ayes, but there being no Tellers for the Noes, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.
  Question agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State which is attributable to the Act.
  MR. DAVID JAMIESON and MR. JOHN M. TAYLOR, who acted as Tellers in Division No. 213, came to the Table.
  Mr. Jamieson: I have to inform the House that on the reasoned amendment, we reported that the votes for the Noes were 347. They were 357.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the House will have heard that correction. I shall see that the record is corrected.

  Burford Community Hospital
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McFall.]
  11.34 pm
  Mr. Shaun Woodward: I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce a debate on the important subject of Burford community hospital. I am especially pleased to see the Minister in his place tonight, not least because I requested a meeting with the Department of Health about that hospital and, I am sorry to say, have not yet received a reply.
  In the two options proposed by the Oxfordshire community health NHS trust, Witney community hospital will be subjected to a savage cut in beds, and in both options, Burford community hospital will close.
  No community hospital is like another. Burford community hospital provides care for a neighbouring population of more than 27,000 people. It is in the heart of a highly rural area and, as such, it is at the heart of the community. It is the focus of enormous voluntary support in that community, with more than 80 volunteers, who share a wide variety of tasks, from staffing the reception desk to providing transport for the sick and elderly, and providing meals on wheels.
  Most of the people who use the hospital are old. They are the most vulnerable in our community, and their numbers are projected to grow. Indeed, at the moment, only two miles from the hospital, at Bradwell grove, a new housing estate of 150 houses designed specifically for the elderly is taking shape.
  Under the county structure plan, west Oxfordshire is about to grow considerably. An extra 7,500 houses will be built in the next few years. One thousand of those will be built just four miles from Burford, at Carterton. Indeed, the structure plan proposes that, in the next four years, west Oxfordshire's population will grow by nearly four times the percentage of Oxford city's growth, and significantly more than that of any other local authority area in Oxfordshire.
  According to the community health trust's figures, west Oxfordshire has an average number of community hospital beds per 1,000 of the population. However, if it is projected that the population will grow by nearly 6 per cent. in the next four years, obviously the closure of Burford community hospital, and the savage cuts at nearby Witney community hospital, will lead to that rural community being dramatically under-provided.
  Sadly, in the community health trust document that is to be released in the next few weeks, setting out the options for the future, there is no mention of those proposed population increases. Indeed, there is nothing in the document at present about the pressure that those increases would place on the ambulance service, which would be involved in ferrying people around as a consequence of the closure of Burford community hospital.
  The document does discuss the number of beds, but it takes no account of other services in the hospital. It takes no account of the facilities provided by the new day care centre, built as recently as last year, at a cost of £135,000. None of that money came from the Department of Health: it was raised entirely by local people in the community.
  1070
  The crucial factor in the case of Burford community hospital is that it is a living institution, absolutely at the heart of a very rural town. The document does not refer to the splendid work being done for those who have Alzheimer's disease; at the Burford community hospital there is a pioneering new unit called the Specal unit, which is doing sensational rehabilitation work with people who suffer from that terrible illness. The document makes no mention of the importance of respite care, which is so important today, not only for the patient but for the carer.
  Is the Minister happy that the community health trust proposals that are now being set before the public have been carefully prepared? Is he sure that the proposals that will be put on the table in the next week or so are genuinely fit to be the subject of public consultation?
  My local newspapers, particularly the Witney Gazette and the Cotswold Standard, have worked brilliantly in the past few weeks to highlight the sheer desperation felt by those who live around Burford. They tell of the most desperate case histories and of people worried sick by the proposals. Such people are the most frail and vulnerable members of our rural countryside community. What will happen to the 68-year-old triple-bypass patient—who was saved by brilliant medical care in the John Radcliffe acute hospital—when the community hospital closes? What about the 75-year-old patient with Alzheimer's?
  One of my constituents, Mrs. Read, who suffers from advanced dementia, lives two miles from the hospital. Her doctor says that she is
  "one of the most magnificent rehabilitation cases"
  that he has ever seen. Why? Her doctor says that it is because of the sensational work done by the local community hospital. What does her carer—in this case, her husband—have to say? It is very simple. He says:
  "Without Burford Hospital my life would be horrible. My wife would have to go into a home, miles away from us. Every five weeks she goes in for respite care. Every week she visits the day unit. We can't say how much these breaks mean for us. I don't know how we would cope if Burford closed. We just don't know what we would do."
  What of the patients with terminal illnesses? General practitioners have told me:
  "They will face the prospect of many hours on a hospital trolley in the John Radcliffe Hospital awaiting a bed."
  That hospital is a 40-mile round trip from Burford, and patients must wait in a corridor. By closing the Burford community hospital, what kind of new health national service will we be offering to someone who is dying and may have only weeks to live? What will happen to those people? What plans does the community health trust have for them?
  I am sorry to tell you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that, as the document is prepared to go out for public consultation, the answer to that question is none. The document contains no explanation of what will happen. It simply puts forward two options: option 1, close Burford hospital; and, option 2, close Burford hospital. Is the Minister satisfied that the research conducted by the community health trust justifies the panic and the worry that the proposals are generating?
  Burford hospital may be small—it has only 11 beds—but the community health trust's figures for this year show an average occupancy of about 90 per cent.

  1071
  Indeed, from July last year until this month, bed occupancy has been consistently above 90 per cent., and is currently 96 per cent.
  Mr. Robert Jackson: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Is he aware that at Wallingford, which is another hospital on the community health trust's hit list, bed occupancy is currently 98 per cent?
  Mr. Woodward: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. That is part of the serious picture in Oxfordshire, which I hope that the Minister will take seriously. The beds at those hospitals are not under-utilised. Those hospitals are not failing to provide critical local care based on local need: they are needed, they are local, and their future is crucial.
  The House knows how important community hospitals are in relieving bed blocking at acute hospitals and reducing waiting lists. I am grateful to the Minister for providing me with the most recent figures for waiting lists in Oxfordshire. At the end of last year, 6,371 people were awaiting hospital admittance. I am sorry to say that that figure has now risen to just below 7,000. The picture for day-case admissions is far worse—it has increased by nearly 50 per cent. in Oxfordshire in the past 12 months, from just over 4,000 to 6,000.
  In the run-up to the last election, the Labour party promised to cut waiting lists. The figures speak for themselves. Many would like to know why the Labour Government, on the basis of their own figures, are presiding over such a dramatic increase in waiting times, yet seem to do nothing to call the health authority to its senses and prevent it from closing the hospital.
  I am sure that the Minister would respond by saying that he has no power to do so. However, just two weeks ago, on the eve of the countryside march, when 300,000 people gathered in London to protest about the impact of Government policy on rural communities, the Government announced that they would halt the closure of village schools. Can the Minister respond in the same way tonight and say that he will halt the closure of hospitals such as the Burford community hospital?
  It is difficult to see the strategy behind the plans. There is no intellectual coherence. The section on the health strategy for Oxfordshire, updated just two years ago, entitled "Elderly people and mental health problems" states:
  "Services should be as close as possible to people in their homes…and be integrated between hospitals and community settings."
  In the light of that strategy, particularly given the importance of the hospital in the life of the elderly, the options to close Burford do not make sense.
  At the end of last year, the Government published their White Paper "The New NHS", which I have read. Reading it, one could be forgiven for thinking that the Government care about hospitals such as that at Burford, and that they would fight to save them. In theory, they emphasise the value of community hospitals.
  Mr. Tony Baldry: My hon. Friend is looking for some rationale. The only rationale is that the community health trust must save some £1.5 million. That cut of £1.5 million affects the entire county and will be achieved through the proposed cuts in community
  1072
  hospitals in the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Witney (Mr. Woodward) and for Wantage (Mr. Jackson). There is no rationale, other than the necessity for the trust to make a cut forced on it by the Government.
  Mr. Woodward: I am sad to say that my hon. Friend is probably correct in his assessment of the situation.
  There is an opportunity for the Government to recognise the damage that is being done. As page 41 of their own report on the new NHS states:
  "Too often in the past community hospitals have been sidelined. Their potential contribution to managing the pressures of rising emergency admissions has often been ignored. Patients will be able to use local community hospitals to the full rather than having to travel to more distant acute hospitals. This will be particularly significant in rural areas."
  The rhetoric is there, yet the two proposals on the table for Burford are that it will close.
  I remind the House what the Secretary of State for Health said in his statement when he presented the White Paper last December. He said:
  "When I became Secretary of State, I promised that we would listen to people on the front line—the nurses and doctors, midwives and the other professionals and staff in the NHS."—[Official Report, 9 December 1997; Vol. 302, c. 796.]
  Yet the proposals for the closure of Burford have not been based on listening. Of course there is a consultation exercise, but there is no confidence among the people who depend on that community hospital that that is any more than the rubber stamping of a decision taken by the community health trust and forced on it by cuts in its budget by the Oxfordshire health authority.
  I beg the Minister to listen, as the Secretary of State said he would.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Burford community hospital is just three miles from the county boundary of Gloucestershire? Many thousands of people who live within a 10-mile radius of the hospital may need to use its services.
  I face in Gloucestershire the same sort of pressures as my hon. Friend faces in Oxfordshire. Does he agree that the way forward for community hospitals is for them to develop a specialty different from that of the neighbouring community hospital, so that all community hospitals have their own specialty and people have the maximum choice?
  Mr. Woodward: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Of course, if Burford community hospital is closed, it will have no opportunity to develop anything.
  I beg the Minister to listen to what people are saying, as his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said that he will. I ask him to listen to my constituents such as Frank and Joan Sedlemeier. Frank, who is 80, had pacemaker heart surgery a year ago. He moved out of the John Radcliffe at Oxford to convalesce at Burford. He now attends the hospital's day care centre every Wednesday. His 68-year-old wife, who looks after him round the clock, is desperate for a bed to be made available at Burford so that she can have a break. She cannot get one because the beds are all full.

  1073
  We need the Minister to listen to the local doctors, such as those who work at the Burford surgery. As Dr. Sharpley said to me:
  "In the event of closure of we will have only one option of patient management open to us. This will be inappropriate and more expensive as we will be forced to admit patients to the John Radcliffe."
  Dr. Sharpley continued:
  "We are currently receiving daily faxes from the John Radcliffe claiming their beds are full. If our patients face refusal of acute emergency admission, where will these 'inappropriate' admissions go?"
  They will certainly not go to Witney, which is the other hospital in my constituency; the community health trust plans to close at least 13 of its beds. Those 13 beds are always in use. Only last Friday, I was in the hospital and I was told that only one of the 61 beds was available.
  The Minister may wish to know that I raised the matter with the community health trust. He may be staggered to know that it replied:
  "The population will continue to have access to community hospital services through Witney hospital, which has good road and public transport links from Burford (less than eight miles)—average car journey time of nine minutes."
  Think about it. Unless it is proposed that the people of Burford travel under police escort, it is impossible for anyone living in Burford to get to Witney in that time. If anyone were to do so, it would be necessary to travel at 60 mph. That is a ludicrous proposal. It is one more example of how nothing has been thought through by the community health trust in its planned closure.
  Doctors and patients do not feel that they have been consulted. There is an onus on the Minister to tell the House whether he is satisfied that the community health trust has done its homework. Has he the confidence to say tonight that it has properly consulted the general practitioners? If there had been proper consultation, the Minister would know, as I do, that the GPs will be unable to serve their patients if they are forced to go to Witney or Oxford, not least because Witney is way outside their practice areas.
  The Minister may wish to know that the GPs have told me that there has been no proper consultation with them. This clearly makes nonsense of the trust's suggestion in its letter to me of 13 March that, as a result of effecting either of the options,
  "more health care can be delivered in the home setting."
  The health professionals disagree.
  The Secretary of State has said that he will listen to the health professionals, so I hope that the Minister is listening tonight. I am talking of a crucial hospital, a community hospital. Local people have raised nearly £500,000 over the past 10 years; they want to save their hospital. I have letter after letter in which people set out their desperate concern. That concern is supported by Carterton town council and West Oxfordshire district council. It is a battle for survival.
  I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to reassure the people of Burford that he will do everything in his power to save a vital community resource.
  11.53 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Paul Boateng): I congratulate the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) on securing the debate. It is obviously an important issue in his constituency. Community hospitals play a valued part in the local health service, providing health care in a friendly and homely way, and in a way that I know commands the support of the hon. Gentleman's constituents. He has outlined that support tonight.
  Obviously, any proposals to reconfigure the service involving the proposed closure of the community hospital is bound to excite the concern and attention of local people. The hon. Gentleman seeks assurances, of course, from Ministers about the future of Burford community hospital. He must understand—it was made absolutely clear to him by my hon. Friend the Minister of State only two weeks ago—that it would be grossly inappropriate for Ministers to be drawn into detailed commentary on each and every consultation on proposals for the reconfiguration of the service. He will understand, as, I hope, will his hon. Friends, that it would not be right for us to prejudge the outcome of any local consultation, and I have no intention of doing so.
  Mr. Robert Jackson: I quite understand that, at this stage, it might be difficult for the Minister to comment, but, if the proposals are persisted with, he will, in due course, have to decide whether they are acceptable. In general terms, does he feel that the Government's policy of trying to maximise efficiency in the health service is compatible with trying to create additional pressure on acute hospitals by closing the cheaper beds that are available at community hospitals?
  Mr. Boateng: The hon. Gentleman is an old stager in these matters, but I am not so wet behind the ears to respond to his lure or give any indication of our view on the proposals, either generally or specifically. We expect the consultation to take place on the two options that have been outlined, to see whether either of the two should go ahead. It should begin around the end of the month and last for three months. Hon. Members from the official Opposition and from other parties will have an opportunity to make their views known.
  Dr. Evan Harris: I understand the Minister not wanting to discuss the specific proposal, but my constituents are affected due to Abingdon community hospital facing a loss of beds, so I shall be grateful to hear in general terms how the Government will ensure in the coming months that health authorities and trusts do not create longer-term problems through the need to make necessary short-term cuts because of existing plans—I accept that they are not his own, and they are grossly insufficient—by cutting the number of beds and reducing respite care, which means increased emergency admissions and delayed discharges.
  Mr. Boateng: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. No doubt his health authority will take into account his arguments when making its proposals for hospitals in his community.
  Hon. Members must understand that we inherited a poisoned legacy from the Conservatives and are endeavouring to tackle the real problems that the NHS in

  1075
  general and constituents of the hon. Member for Witney face. We endeavour to do that through a number of principles, one of the most important of which is delivering cost-effective health care as close to the homes of our fellow citizens as possible.
  Within that overarching principle, there is a role for community hospitals. We all value the contribution that they make. I have no doubt that Burford community hospital and other hospitals of that nature in Oxfordshire are well loved by their local communities. Oxfordshire health authority will have to look at how the hospital fits into its overall strategy for the county. It will need to be assessed against a range of criteria, including clinical quality and accessibility. The hon. Gentleman knows that, as do we. He will make his point during the consultation process. If the community health council objects to the health authority's proposal, the hon. Gentleman can make further representations when the matter comes before Ministers.
  It is important to make it clear that this area has benefited substantially from the election of a Labour Government. There has been a considerable injection of new money into Oxfordshire since May last year. It was uncharacteristically churlish of the hon. Gentleman not to give the Government credit for providing new resources for the NHS.
  Mr. Woodward: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Boateng: No, the hon. Gentleman has had his say, and he must now listen.
  More than any other health authority in the Anglia and Oxford region, Oxfordshire received additional help to cope with winter pressures. It received £3.4 million, which is 22 per cent. of the total allocation to the region of £15.2 million. Of that £3.4 million, £554,000 went to the community trust for community rehabilitation services. Overall, £2.1 million was allocated to community schemes. That is what the new Labour Government made available to serve the hon. Gentleman's constituents. He should at least recognise that.
  The hon. Gentleman did not represent his constituency in the previous Parliament, but had he done so he would know that his constituents were starved of resources by the Tory Government.
  Mr. Woodward rose—
  Mr. Boateng: No, the hon. Gentleman will listen.
  1076
  NHS staff were thoroughly demoralised by the lack of recognition that the Department of Health gave under Conservative Ministers to the needs of the hon. Gentleman's constituents.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Boateng: No, I shall not give way. Conservative Members have had ample opportunity to make their case, and I am now explaining to them and to their constituents what the Government intend to do to regenerate the health service in Oxfordshire.
  We shall ensure that health and social care services work closer together on the issues that concern the hon. Gentleman, such as mental health, rehabilitation and recuperation. [Interruption.] It is no use the hon. Member for Witney muttering from a sedentary position that we are going to close the hospital.
  Mr. Woodward: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Boateng: There is no need for the hon. Gentleman to get over-excited. It is no use his muttering from a sedentary or from a vertical position that we are going to close the hospital. He knows that it is a matter for the health authority. His community health council will have the opportunity to comment on the issue, and, in due course, Ministers will come to a view. We shall give the most careful consideration to the points made by the hon. Gentleman. When we consider what is in the best interests of the people of Oxfordshire, we shall take into account the impact of any proposals on the patients in the Burford area. We shall make our decision in the best interests of the service.
  The hon. Gentleman has sought to serve his constituents as best he can. I thank him for making the debate possible. He can be sure that the points that have been made tonight have been carefully noted and will be taken into account. We all have an interest in ensuring that the best of the NHS grows and develops. Community hospitals have an important role to play in delivering our vision for the NHS. We intend to put the patient first, to recognise local needs, and to provide a cost-effective NHS for all the people. That is the Government's priority, and we shall see it through.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at four minutes past Twelve midnight.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Office Cost Allowance
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the President of the Council (1) if she will list the hon. Members who(a) retired at the 1997 Dissolution and (b) were defeated in the 1997 general election who have claimed a full year's office cost allowance for 1997–98, broken down by party; [34690]

  (2) if she will list the hon. Members who (a) retired at the 1992 Dissolution and (b) were defeated in the 1992 general election who claimed a full year's office cost allowance for 1992–93, broken down by party.[34689]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  No.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid Board
  Mr. Andy King
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the Legal Aid Board's responsibilities when a franchised solicitor is responsible for delays in the proceedings of a case beyond the three-year time limit. [33600]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Legal Aid Board has no power to investigate allegations of professional negligence in the legal sense. A client can seek redress for loss caused by his/her solicitor's alleged negligence through the courts. The Office for the Supervision of Solicitors (OSS) does not have the power to investigate allegations of negligence. It can, however, refer the client to a solicitor who is a member of the Negligence Panel Scheme for further assistance if the OSS believe there may have been negligence in the client's case.

  The Legal Aid Board undertakes audits of a sample of franchisees' files to ensure that the solicitors continue to comply with the requirements of the Franchising Specification. It also investigates any complaints made by clients about the quality of service given by a franchised solicitor.

  One of the requirements under the Franchising Specification is a system to maintain a back-up record of key dates relevant to a case. If, during an audit, it was evident that no back up system was in place, the Board would categorise that as a major non compliance.

  However, a single incident of a missed time limit would not necessarily lead the Board to conclude that a back-up system was not in place. The Board would investigate all the circumstances before deciding if action was appropriate under the franchise. If appropriate, the Board would require corrective action to be taken within twenty one days. A follow-up audit would be made to ensure that action had been taken. Failure to do so could lead to the
  434
  Board either suspending the contract or terminating it, if necessary, to protect both the client's interests and those of the Legal Aid Fund.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Radioactive Discharges
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent correspondence his Department's ministers have had with Swedish authorities acting on behalf of the Nordic Council of Environment Ministers concerning radioactive discharges from Sellafield and Dounreay; and what response has been received. [33026]

  Mr. Meacher
  Mrs. Anna Lindh, Swedish Minister for the Environment, wrote to me on 27 February in her capacity as Chairperson of the Nordic Council of Environment Ministers, regarding discharges of technetium-99 from Sellafield. She enclosed a copy of a report from the Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority, entitled "Technetium-99 contamination in the North Sea and Norwegian coastal areas, 1996 and 1997". I am placing copies of Mrs. Lindh's letter, my reply and the Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority's report in the Library.

  Household Projections
  Mr. Tom King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what timetable he proposes for the revision of planning guidance and the publication of the discussion papers, advice and research referred to in paragraph 93 of "Planning for the Communities of the Future" (Cm 3885). [33825]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government hope to issue a consultation draft of a revised PPG3 by the summer recess. We hope to publish the discussion paper on regional targets before we consult on the draft revised PPG3. The Department intends to issue a discussion paper on monitoring indicators during the Spring, with a view to incorporating the results in a draft PPG3 which we hope to issue for consultation by the summer recess.

  With regard to research, the following timetable applies:
  mixed uses and housing in town centres—we hope to let this imminently and to publish by Spring 1999;
  density—publication should be by April 1998;
  economic instruments—research seminars on planning obligations are to be held shortly and the results will be reported to Ministers thereafter;
  land assembly—this issue will be examined as part of two projects—the mixed use one mentioned above and a project on land pooling which we hope to commission in April;
  land use database—the first stage of this, incorporating a national assessment of previously developed land and buildings available for housing, will be available by January 1999. A timetable for the remaining stages, extending the database to other land uses, will be clarified over the course of the coming year.

  Tourism
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what grants will be available to regional development agencies to assist the tourism industry; and what assessment he has made of the level of grants available to Scotland and Wales. [33908]

  Angela Eagle
  Government financial support for the tourism industry in England is currently being considered as part of the comprehensive spending review process. Arrangements in Scotland and Wales are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Royal Ordnance Site, Chorley
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will visit the Royal Ordnance site in Euxton, Chorley, to assess its potential for development. [33910]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The future of the Royal Ordnance Site is an important matter for Chorley and the North West. However, because of the potential quasi-judicial role of the Secretary of State should any proposal come before him for determination, it would be inappropriate for Ministers to visit at this stage.

  Research and Development
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will set up regional banks to support research and development in industry. [33909]

  Angela Eagle
  The Government have no proposals to set up regional banks. However, Regional Development Agencies will be responsible for promoting competitiveness and exchange of best practice, including technology transfer, from innovative companies and higher education to the wider business community.

  Aviation Industry
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the Integrated Transport White Paper will include specific targets for improving the environment around airports, with particular reference to the impact of noise and congestion; and if he will make a statement. [34115]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Integrated Transport White Paper will set the framework within which detailed policies will be developed and implemented in due course.

  Heathrow Airport
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what factors underlie the number of emergency take-offs and landings at Heathrow during the past three years; and what assessment he has made of the public safety implications of trends in these figures. [34111]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The number and type of emergency situations declared by pilots of aircraft landing at or taking off from Heathrow Airport in the last three years are listed in the following table. The majority of these emergencies were declared as a precautionary measure and involved no immediate danger to the aircraft.
  436

  Reason for emergency

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Low fuel

  1

  1

  3

  Medical (Passengers and crew)

  2

  5

  3

  Engine problems

  2

  2

  3

  Suspected fires

  —

  3

  —

  Mechanical etc. problems

  4

  6

  8

  Burst tyres

  —

  1

  —

  Wake vortex encounters

  —

  1

  —

  Birdstrikes

  —

  —

  2

  Lightening strike

  —

  —

  1

  Total

  9

  19

  20

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures he plans to take to strengthen the protection of sites of special scientific interest.[34118]

  Angela Eagle
  The Government are currently considering how best to improve the protection and management of Sites of Special Scientific Interest. Officials are preparing a consultation paper seeking views.

  Public Transport
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to improve the flow of public transport on roads in urban areas in England. [34490]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government will announce their policies on all aspects of transport in the Integrated Transport White Paper due to be published this Spring. In the meantime, my Department is already supporting packages of integrated transport measures in the great majority of urban areas in England. £85 million have been allocated to transport packages in 1998–99 under the Transport Policies and Programme system. Improved facilities for public transport, including bus priority routes, feature in virtually all urban packages. We are also funding the development of a comprehensive bus priority network in London. £11 million are going to that project in 1998–99 alone.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the last date on which applications for consideration for membership of boards of regional development agencies may be made. [34680]

  Angela Eagle
  Applications for membership of regional development agency boards should be received in the relevant Government Office by Friday 27 March 1998.

  Planning Applications
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will extend the right of appeal against decisions by local planning authorities to include objectors to planning applications. [34761]
  437
  Mr. Raynsford
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) on 1 December 1997,Official Report, column 36.

  Domestic Refuse (Recycling)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what volume of domestic refuse was recycled by each London borough in each of the last three years; and what his estimate is for 1998–99. [34301]

  Angela Eagle
  The table shows the total tonnage of domestic refuse collected for recycling by each London borough during the financial year 1995–96. Figures exclude quantities diverted to home composting.

  Where no figure is given, either the local authority has not responded to the Department's survey or the authority was unable to provide weight data.

  Figures for 1996–97 are being processed and will be published as soon as they are available. No estimates are made for future years.

  Domestic refuse collected for recycling in 1995–96

  Tonnes

  Corporation of London

  2,120

  London Borough of Barking and Dagenham

  —

  London Borough of Barnet

  9,269

  London Borough of Bexley

  1,792

  London Borough of Bromley

  16,071

  London Borough of Camden

  5,567

  London Borough of Croydon

  1,341

  London Borough of Ealing

  4,884

  London Borough of Enfield

  3,918

  London Borough of Greenwich

  2,766

  London Borough of Hackney

  936

  London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham

  3,215

  London Borough of Haringey

  2,265

  London Borough of Harrow

  3,363

  London Borough of Havering

  —

  London Borough of Hillingdon

  —

  London Borough of Hounslow

  4,040

  London Borough of Islington

  1,710

  London Borough of Kensington & Chelsea

  6,232

  London Borough of Kingston Upon Thames

  10,238

  London Borough of Lambeth

  2,880

  London Borough of Lewisham

  2,736

  London Borough of Merton

  2,903

  London Borough of Newham

  961

  London Borough of Redbridge

  6,597

  London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames

  7,917

  London Borough of Southwark

  1,785

  London Borough of Sutton

  3,163

  London Borough of Tower Hamlets

  802

  London Borough of Waltham Forest

  2,759

  London Borough of Wandsworth

  4,214

  Westminster City Council

  522

  Total, all reporting London boroughs

  121,583

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the proportion of waste(a) paper, (b) glass and (c) metal nationally has been recycled from domestic waste in each of the past three years; and what his estimate is for 1998–99. [34302]
  438
  Angela Eagle
  The table shows the total reported tonnage of paper and card, glass and metal cans/scrap metal which was collected for recycling by local authorities in England and Wales during the financial year 1995/96. The data are based on information provided by local authorities representing 95 per cent. of the households in England and Wales.

  It is not possible to provide the proportions as requested as there is insufficient national data on waste composition to express the tonnage of each material collected for recycling as a proportion of the total of each material in the domestic waste stream.

  Figures for 1996/97 are being processed and will be published as soon as they are available. No estimates are made for future years.

  Amounts collected for recycling by local authorities in England and Wales

  Tonnes

  Glass

  278,800

  Paper

  262,700

  Card

  16,900

  Mixed paper and card

  152,000

  Total paper and card

  431,600

  Steel cans

  4,400

  Aluminium cans

  1,900

  Mixed cans

  10,200

  Scrap metal/white goods

  153,000

  Total metal cans/scrap metal

  169,500

  Traffic Congestion
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to alleviate severe traffic congestion in urban areas. [34041]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  This is a subject that the Government will address in their forthcoming White Paper on integrated transport policy.

  Rail Timetables
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will place copies in the Library of the current notional railway timetables for Summer 2002 and 2005. [34314]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Railtrack is responsible for producing the biannual Great Britain Passenger Timetable, in consultation with the train operating companies. The timetables do not cover notional services that may be under consideration for future editions.

  Water Companies
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the Office of Water Services has the power to specify that water companies should consult with other organisations regarding their joint response to an emergency or a potential emergency; and if he will make a statement. [34178]
  439
  Angela Eagle
  No. The Office of Water Services has no such powers. Under section 208 of the Water Industry Act 1991, the Secretary of State has the power to direct water companies to do whatever is deemed necessary to mitigate the effects of an emergency which includes consulting other organisations as necessary. Water companies already work closely with other organisations on emergency planning matters.

  Rail Safety
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if the Office of the Passenger Rail Franchising has the power to specify that rail franchisees should consult with other organisations regarding their joint response to an emergency or a potential emergency; and if he will make a statement; [34179]

  (2) if the Office of the Rail Regulator has the power to specify that rail companies should consult with other organisations regarding their joint response to an emergency or a potential emergency; and if he will make a statement. [34180]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  All railway operators are required by the Railways (Safety Case) Regulations 1994 to prepare and have accepted a Railway Safety Case (RSC) which includes amongst other things, particulars of their arrangements for dealing with accidents and emergencies. The guidance which accompanies these Regulations makes it clear that these arrangements should make adequate provision for liaison with emergency services, and for co-operation and co-ordination with other railway operators.

  The Director of Passenger Rail Franchising and the Rail Regulator have wide powers to specify the content of franchise agreements and of licences respectively. I understand that provisions relating to consultation on emergency responses have not been specified because of the wider requirements relating to safety cases and Railway Group Standards.

  Mobile Phones (Drivers)
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action his Department is taking to ensure that motorists are made aware of the dangers of using a hand-held mobile phone while driving; and if he will make a statement. [34859]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  My noble Friend the Minister for Roads is today launching a publicity campaign to make clear to motorists the dangers of using hand-held phones while driving. The campaign includes advertisements in national newspapers and an advisory leaflet reminding motorists of the dangers of using hand-held phones and offering advice on hands-free phone use. Copies of the leaflet have been placed in the Library.

  I am pleased to say that the campaign is supported by the mobile phone industry and four major mobile phone network operators who are producing complementary leaflets for their customers. This will help ensure that the message reaches the relevant audience.

  Local Plans
  Mr. Singh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he is putting in place to improve the delivery of local plans and unitary development plans; and if he will make a statement. [34937]

  Mr. Caborn
  The statement "Modernising Planning", published on 15 January, set out our policies to improve the operation of the planning system. In accordance with those policies, my Department has today published a consultation paper on proposals for changes to the arrangements for the preparation and adoption by local authorities of Local Plans and Unitary Development Plans. Copies of the consultation paper have been placed in the Library.

  The Government are committed to the plan-led system of development. This provides the essential framework for rational and consistent planning decisions, and plays a vital role in promoting development and growth which respects the environment. But if the plan-led system is to work there must be plans which cover all parts of the country and an effective system to keep those plans up to date.

  The previous Government agreed a target date with local authorities for substantial coverage of local plans by the end of 1996. Only 43 per cent. coverage was achieved by that date. The figure is expected to be about 70 per cent. by the end of 1998. We therefore propose to introduce changes to national policy guidance and to procedures aimed at:

  promoting shorter, clearer plans;

  securing better targeted consultation;

  encouraging authorities to announce and be accountable for a target timetable;

  promoting negotiation on objections in order to reduce the number of issues requiring discussion at the inquiry;

  making the Inspector's report publicly available within a set time period; and

  encouraging the prompt adoption of plans.

  Improvements in the quality and content of plans have a crucial role in speeding up the development plans' system. The revised guidance draws attention to the scope for authorities to learn from the best practice of others. However, ensuring that efficient procedures are in place is only part of the answer. Much of the success of these proposals depends on the approach adopted by the local authorities in taking them forward. These proposals will improve the system only if used constructively by planning authorities and there is real commitment from them to making the plan led system work.

  Departmental Buildings
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the total expenditure by his Department on (i) building maintenance and (ii) office running costs, on the last year for which figures are available,(a) in total and (b) broken down by offices and buildings in (i) London and (ii) Scotland. [34226]
  441
  Angela Eagle
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London, on 2 March 1998,Official Report, column 421. Maintenance costs are included in the running costs quoted for each building. A further breakdown of these costs is not available.

TREASURY

  Taxation (Professional Businesses)
  Sir Nicholas Lyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the likely effect on the availability of High Street solicitors of the Government's proposals for the withdrawal of the cash basis practice for the taxation of professional businesses. [33317]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The overall effect of the proposals on any professionals will of course depend on the final details to be announced in my right hon. Friend's Budget.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what factors governed the length of time taken to answer the question from the hon. Member for Chichester (ref. 28925) of 8 February, relating to Mr. C. Whelan. [34419]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 13 March 1998]: It has always been the case that the length of time to answer parliamentary questions varies.

  Art Market
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on the implications of VAT harmonisation in the EU on the United Kingdom art market. [32907]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have received representations from the British Art Market Federation and from members of the art trade, and am aware of concerns about the effects on the UK art market of harmonisation of VAT on imports of works of art.

  Economic Stability
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has to strengthen economic stability. [35081]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  I propose to implement a Code for Fiscal Stability. The Code, which will be underpinned by legislation in the Finance Bill, will enhance economic stability by ensuring that fiscal and debt management policy operate in accordance with the principles of transparency, stability, responsibility, efficiency and fairness. Copies of the paper which sets out and explains the Code for Fiscal Stability have been placed in the Vote Office and in the Library of the House.

  Insurance Premium Tax
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the benefits to organisations with both travel and insurance interests of the different rates of insurance premium tax levied on travel insurance. [29537]
  442
  Dawn Primarolo
  Organisations with both travel and insurance interests, the most typical examples being travel agents, will usually be paying the higher rate of insurance premium tax. However, travel agents often offer free insurance to assist their marketing of holidays, and in such cases they benefit from the standard rate of IPT on premiums paid to their insurance companies.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in respect of how many employees the employers' marginal rate of contribution would be(a) higher and (b) lower than at present if the three steps increases in employers NICs were eliminated and this was financed by raising the rate of NIC to 12.2 per cent. [33511]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 9 March 1998]: I have been asked to reply.

  If the steps for employers' contributions at £110, £155 and £210 were eliminated and the employers' contribution rate increased to 12.2 per cent., the marginal rate for employers would be lower in respect of employees earning immediately below £110, £155 and £210. The marginal rate for employers would be higher in respect of all other employees whose earnings attract employers' contributions.

DEFENCE

  Exports
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 16 February 1998,Official Report, column 486, if he will place a copy of the Defence Export Services Organisation five-year Strategic Plan in the Library. [31319]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 27 February 1998]: The Defence Export Services Organisation's, DESO, Five-Year Strategic Plan is the Ministry of Defence's detailed assessment of future market prospects and the UK's marketing objectives. It is built up on the basis of sensitive information provided by companies and other Governments on the understanding that it would not be made public. It is normal practice for companies to withhold detailed information on their forward marketing plans because these provide information which could be an advantage to commercial competitors.

  Publication of the DESO Strategic Plan would harm the UK's commercial and national interests. I am therefore withholding the document under the provisions of Exemptions 1, 13 and 14 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what plans he has for the international testing of computer systems for their millennium compliance with NATO allies; and if he will make a statement; [33383]

  (2) what discussions are taking place in (i) the NATO Forum (ii) NATO Partnership for Peace and (iii) the OSCE on the millennium compliance of computer systems; and if he will make a statement. [33381]
  443
  Mr. Spellar
  The UK is active in generating awareness of the millennium problem within NATO. The MOD has provided briefings to NATO Allies, with Partnership For Peace members in attendance, on its experience and progress in addressing the problem nationally. We have highlighted the need for a corporate commitment to address the problem in both NATO and national systems, and the need for a collaborative approach to checking and testing to ensure that critical systems and vital inter-operation are not jeopardised by the problem. In the context of the OSCE, Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the issue of 'millennium compliance' of the OSCE national consultation network is being raised at a meeting in Vienna later this month.

  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress in ensuring the millennium compliance of computer systems in the Royal Navy, and on plans to undertake the action necessary on ships on operational duty at sea. [33382]

  Mr. Spellar
  All computer systems currently in service with the Navy are being assessed for millennium compliance as part of the wider MOD activity currently being conducted. Any action required to make systems compliant will, as far as possible, be carried out as part of routine maintenance schedules, taking account of the high priority we attach to this issue.

  We are liaising with suppliers to ensure that all future systems, including Naval computer systems, are designed and built with millennium compliance.

  Nerve Agent Pre-treatment
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department is planning to seek a full product licence from the Medicine Control Agency for its proposed nerve agent pre-treatment using a combination of physostigmine and hyoscine. [33801]

  Dr. Reid
  The research currently being carried out by the Chemical and Biological Defence sector of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency into a proposed nerve agent pre-treatment using a combination of physostigmine and hyoscine is due to be completed in June 1999.

  If the pre-treatment proves effective against nerve agent poisoning, it is likely to undergo a full safety evaluation prior to submission for approval for a full product licence from the Medicines Control Agency.

  Atomic Weapons Establishment, Aldermaston
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the Weapon Engineering Division at the Atomic Weapons Establishment, Aldermaston, was set up; what is the purpose of this division; how many series of technical papers or reports are currently being produced by this division; and what are the names of each series. [33859]

  Mr. Spellar
  The "Weapon" Engineering Division at the Atomic Weapons Establishment, which is more properly known as the Warhead Engineering Division, was set up in 1954. The Division is now part of the Systems Engineering area. Its purpose is to undertake 444
  scientific warhead design through to an engineered system. This work enables AWE to underwrite the performance and safety of the warhead.

  One untitled series of reports is currently being issued. There are also a number of general engineering technology studies.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 29 January 1998,Official Report, column 345, on the Atomic Weapons Establishment, Aldermaston, how many unclassified papers were produced in each of the two series of reports produced by the chemical technology division of the Atomic Weapons Establishment between 1968 and 1991. [33855]

  Mr. Spellar
  Not all of the information sought is available. The Technical Memoranda series contains some 95 unclassified reports. The other series contained a large number of informal reports and documents and there was no requirement to record how many of these were unclassified. To obtain the information now, a very large number of files not in current use would have to be retrieved and examined and this could be done only at disproportionate cost.

  Warhead Hydrodynamics Division
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 25 February 1998,Official Report, column 261, on the Warhead Hydrodynamics Division, how many unclassified papers were produced in the series known as Hydrodynamics Department-Technical Reports, R Series; and of which directorate the Hydrodynamics Department is now a part. [33856]

  Mr. Spellar
  There are 99 unclassified papers in the Hydrodynamics Department Technical Reports R Series. Hydrodynamics is part of the Physics Research Directorate.

  Staff Newsletters
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the current security classifications of the newsletters produced for the staff of(a) the Specialist Procurement Services Agency of his Department (b) the Naval Bases and Supply Agency and (c) the RAF Maintenance Group; how often each newsletter is produced; and when each newsletter was first produced. [33858]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is a matter for the Chief Executives of the Agencies concerned. I have asked them to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ken Procter to Mr. Matthew Taylor, dated 16 March 1998:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the current security classifications of newsletters produced for the staff of the Royal Air Force Maintenance Group Defence Agency, because this matter falls within my area of responsibility as the Acting Chief Executive of the Royal Air Force Maintenance Group Defence Agency.
  There are no Agency newsletters produced for staff within the Maintenance Group Defence Agency as a whole.
  445
  Letter from N. J. Bennett to Mr. Matthew Taylor, dated 16 March 1998:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the current security classifications of the newsletters produced for the staff of Specialist Procurement Services (SPS), as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of that Agency.
  SPS produces a newsletter in the form of an "in-house" magazine called "The Specialist". The magazine, which is unclassified, is published 6 times a year and the first issue was produced in April 1997. Copies of the newsletter are sent to all SPS staff and our MOD customers.
  I hope this information is helpful, but please contact me if you require further clarification.

  Letter from John Trewby to Mr. Matthew Taylor, dated 16 March 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Defence has asked me to reply to your Question about the newsletter for the Naval Bases and Supply Agency (NBSA) as this falls within my area of responsibility.
  The current newsletter of the NBSA is entitled "First Issue" and is unclassified. It was first published in October 1995 following the formation of the Director General Naval Bases and Supply organisation. This corporate magazine has remained in circulation since the launch of the NBSA in December 1996 and continues to be published on a quarterly basis.

  Intelligence Gathering
  Mr. Alan Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 20 January 1998,Official Report, column 480, whether Hull trawlermen were at any time required to sign the Official Secrets Act. [34131]

  Dr. Reid
  No information is available to indicate that trawlermen were required to sign the Official Secrets Act, nor is it considered likely that they would have been so required.

  York Headquarters
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the annual cost of maintaining(a) Land Command 2nd Divisional Headquarters and (b) Headquarters 15th Brigade in York. [34503]

  Dr. Reid
  The estimated cost of maintaining these headquarters next financial year will be:

  £

  (i) HQ 2nd Division, York

  7,629,000

  (ii) HQ 15 Brigade, York

  2,017,000

  These figures include pay and running costs of the headquarters and maintenance of the buildings.

  Defence Personnel and Employees
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list by economic planning region the number of Ministry of Defence(a) service personnel and (b) civilian employees based in the United Kingdom in (i) 1995, (ii) 1996 and (iii) 1997. [34504]

  Dr. Reid
  The information requested has been published in the UK Defence Statistics 1997 on page 28, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Civilian Staff
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the(a) number and (b) annual cost of surplus civilian staff retained on the payroll in each of the United Kingdom Land Command divisional areas. [34505]

  Dr. Reid
  As at 31 December 1997, which is the most recent date for which verified figures are available, Land Command employed no surplus civilian staff.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the(a) number and (b) annual cost of surplus civilian staff being retained on the payroll in each of the MoD top level budget areas. [34506]

  Dr. Reid
  As at 31 December 1997, the most recent date for which verified figures are available, the number of surplus non-industrial civilian staff retained on the payroll in each Top Level Budget area were as follows:

  Number

  CINCFLEET

  3

  CFS

  33

  2SL

  3

  HQ LAND

  0

  QMG

  4

  AG

  21

  HQNI

  0

  RAF STC

  0

  RAF LOGISTICS COMMAND

  16

  RAF P&T COMMAND

  1

  CDP

  12

  2nd PUS (incl VCDS)

  38

  Total

  131

  Surplus staff are defined as non-industrial civilian staff with a full mobility obligation whose posts have either been abolished or will be abolished within 6 months. The number of staff who are temporarily surplus varies from month to month, as some are found permanent posts and others are declared newly surplus. Accordingly, it is not possible to estimate the annual cost of those staff who may be temporarily surplus.

  Al-Yamamah Project
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the(a) outside agencies, (b) middlemen and (c) trading organisations that have been used in arms or equipment purchases connected with the Al-Yamamah project (i) prior to and (ii) after the awarding of the contract. [34033]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 12 March 1998]: The British Government have not employed business agents, nor individuals, or organisations of the type described in the Question either prior to, or after, the award of the Al-Yamamah contract. Negotiations concerning the role of the British Government in the Al-Yamamah programme have been conducted by diplomats and civil servants in the normal way. Any use of agents by companies associated with Al-Yamamah is a matter for those companies, but the prime contractor, British Aerospace, has assured us that it operates in accordance with the laws and regulations of Saudi Arabia.

  Training (Kenya)
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what training has been(a) requested from and (b) given by his Department to members of the Kenyan Ministry of Special Protection in each of the last three years. [34240]

  Dr. Reid
  I am not aware of a Kenyan Ministry of Special Protection. I can, however, confirm that no training in riot control or internal security techniques has been requested from, or provided to, the Kenyan authorities by members of the Ministry of Defence or the UK Armed Forces in any of the last three years.

  War Memorials
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will establish a register of all war memorials in the United Kingdom erected since the First World War, for conflicts other than World Wars One and Two. [34272]

  Mr. Spellar
  No. These war memorials are already included in the National Inventory of War Memorials, which is jointly managed by the Imperial War Museum and the Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which recent independent studies on links between military nuclear weapons production sites and childhood leukaemias have been evaluated by his Department; and what assessment was made of each. [34453]

  Mr. Spellar
  The most recent independent study, published in the British Medical Journal on 8 November 1997, concerned the incidence of leukaemia among children whose fathers have been exposed to radiation at work. Data on Atomic Weapons Establishment staff were included in the study. My Department accepts and agrees with the study's conclusions.

  RAF Leeming
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 10 March 1998,Official Report, column 149, concerning RAF Leeming, if he will list the bodies for which money was raised. [34764]

  Mr. Spellar
  Since 1 May 1997, RAF Leeming has donated tours of the Station as "prizes" in fund-raising draws to the following bodies: Dales Special School, Moreton-on-Swale, Starbright Childrens Cancer Fund, Broomfield Primary School, Northallerton, 'Dreamflight' (underprivileged children), East Cowton School, the Variety Club of Great Britain, British Field Sports Society, Allertonshire School, Northallerton and Friarage Hospital, Northallerton.

  Iraq (Turkish Forces)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what monitoring of the activities of the Turkish armed forces in Iraq is undertaken by British troops; and if he will make a statement. [34309]

  Dr. Reid
  None. The RAF contributes to coalition patrols of the northern no-fly-zone over Iraq. This was established in 1991 to monitor Iraqi compliance with UN Security Council Resolution 688, which requires Iraq to 448
  cease repression of the civilian population of Iraq. These patrols do no monitor the activities of Turkish armed forces.

  Scots Guards
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the procedure relating to the issuing of a challenge current in the 1 Battalion Scots Guards in September 1992; on how many occasions since 1 September 1992 such procedures have not been complied with; and what revision to procedures has taken place since that date. [34312]

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

  Holy Loch
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 3 March 1998,Official Report, column 538, what action he is taking to press the American Government to contribute to the cost of clearing up Holy Loch. [34295]

  Mr. Spellar
  None.

  Procurement Contracts
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the defence procurement contracts with value of greater than £5 million for each year since 1987; and what were the companies involved in each of these contracts. [34183]

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

  Naval Aircraft Repair Organisation
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what was the original projected cost of the implementation of the MRPII Scheduling System at(a) NARO Almondbank and (b) NARO Fleetlands; and what has been the actual cost of implementation; [34592]

  (2) what was the original projected timescale for the implementation of the MRPII Scheduling System in (i) NARO Almondbank and (ii) NARO Fleetlands; and what has been the actual timescale for implementation; [34594]

  (3) what were the original projected cost savings to be gained from the implementation of the MRP II Scheduling System at (a) NARO Almondbank and (b) NARO Fleetlands; and what have been the actual cost savings of its implementation. [34591]

  Dr. Reid
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Naval Aircraft Repair Organisation (NARO). I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from S. R. Hill to Ms Roseanna Cunningham, dated 16 March 1998:

  1. I am replying to your 3 Questions to the Secretary of State for Defence that sought timescales, cost savings and implementation costs in connection with the MRPII scheduling system in NARO Almondbank and NARO Fleetlands as this falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive.

  449

  2. Timescales. The case approved in January 1992 projected implementation of the MRPII system in NARO Almondbank in July 1993 and in NARO Fleetlands in December 1993 but with the caveat that expenditure could not be committed until an ongoing Efficiency Study of the NARO had been completed. As a direct result of this delay the contract was not let until May 93. Taking this into account MRPII completion would not have been achieved to plan until May 96. At this time the project suffered delays due to data take on (the time for which had been under estimated) and performance and technical shortfalls identified during user pilots. These problems were rectified in time for the system to go live in NARO Almondbank in May 1997 and in NARO Fleetlands in July 1997.

  3. Cost Savings. The case approved in January 1992 projected cost savings to be gained from the MRPII system of £53.6 million in NARO Almondbank and £35.4 million in NARO Fleetlands. The bulk of the perceived savings to the Ministry of Defence were attributable to reduced repair times, improved asset (spares etc.) visibility, and a consequent reduction in the number of assets procured. These savings fall very largely outside the NARO budget. Cost savings were forecast to be realised progressively over a period of 7 years following implementation. The actual savings to date within the NARO are estimated at £37K in NARO Almondbank and £1.0 million in NARO Fleetlands, these savings are deemed from the MRPII system subsuming pre-existing system functions and the decommissioning of the older legacy systems. It is too early yet for us to be able to carry out a post project evaluation of the overall effectiveness of the MRPII system in generating savings for the MoD.

  4. Implementation Costs. The case approved in January 1992 projected a 10 year cost of implementation of the MRPII system in the NARO of £16.2 million (ex VAT at financial year 91/92 prices). The project costs were for the complete MRPII system and were not broken down between the NARO Divisions. The actual cost of implementation on the same price base has been £14.13 million and the current projected 10 year costs include some further costs associated with additional NARO Finance, Personnel, Training and Publications systems.

  5. It should be noted that the MRPII Scheduling System forms part of an integrated business solution, the NARO Business System, which embraces commercial accounting, personnel, attendance and payroll.

  Yorkshire and Lancashire Regiment Museum
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will provide finance to keep open the Yorkshire and Lancashire Regiment Museum in Rotherham. [31436]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave him on 1 December 1997,Official Report, column 24.

PRIME MINISTER

  Publications
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list those European Commission(a) newsletters, (b) magazines and (c) occasional publications to which his Office subscribes. [33656]

  The Prime Minister
  My office makes use of a wide range of publications held within 10 Downing Street and other Government Departments.

  Public Assets Sales
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will introduce measures to make Ministers liable for losses to the taxpayer if public assets are sold at less than their market value.[33610]
  450
  The Prime Minister
  No. Such a proposal would be impractical. In selling public assets Ministers are accountable to Parliament in the normal way. The Government see no reason to change these arrangements.

  This Government's approach to public-private partnerships is designed to ensure that the taxpayer's interests are fully safeguarded.

  Yemen and Oman
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister what meetings he has held since 1 May 1997 at which(a) Yemen and (b) Oman were discussed; and how many meetings he has had with representatives of the (a) Yemeni and (b) Omani Government. [34560]

  The Prime Minister
  I received President Ali Abdullah Saleh in November 1997 and Dr. Omar Zawawi, the Sultan of Oman's special emissary, earlier this month. The Omani and Yemeni Ambassadors were also present at a meeting of Arab Ambassadors at Downing Street in February.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to visit(a) Yemen and (b) Oman. [34559]

  The Prime Minister
  At present, I have no plans to visit either Yemen or Oman.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister how many ministerial visits there have been to(a) Yemen and (b) Oman in the last three years. [34558]

  The Prime Minister
  There have been 4 ministerial visits to Yemen and 14 ministerial visits to Oman over the last three years.

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to the oral answer of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs of 10 March 1998,Official Report, columns 307–8, what criteria he will use to determine the extent of Iraq's compliance with the recent agreement between Iraq and the UN to allow inspections to take place; and if he will submit these criteria to the scrutiny of the French, Russian and Chinese authorities as members of the Security Council. [34770]

  The Prime Minister
  Security Council Resolution 1154 was adopted unanimously by the Security Council. All members agreed that further violations of Iraq's obligations under relevant Security Council Resolutions and the Memorandum of Understanding signed in Baghdad would be followed by the severest consequences.

  The question of Iraqi compliance will be dealt with in reports to the Security Council from the United Nations Special Commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency.

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Prime Minister what is his current estimate of the expenditure of his Department, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies on hospitality since 1 May 1997. [27810]
  451
  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 5 February 1998]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) on 26 February 1998, Official Report, column 311.

SCOTLAND

  Publications
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those European Commission(a) newsletters, (b) magazines and (c) occasional publications to which his Department subscribes. [33651]

  Mr. MacDonald
  The Scottish Office subscribes to the following European Commission publications:

  Com Documents of the commission of the European Communities;

  Directory of Community legislation in force and other Acts of the community institutions;

  Official Journal of the European Communities, Series C, Series L, Series S;

  Index to the Official Journal of the European Communities;

  Debates of the European Parliament

  Cairngorm Funicular Railway
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what conditions the planning agreement for the proposed funicular railway on Cairngorm place on Highlands and Island Enterprise; and how expenditure to be incurred in fulfilling these conditions is to be approved. [33601]

  Mr. MacDonald
  There are a number of references to Highland and Islands Enterprise in the Agreement relative to the funicular railway on Cairngorm entered into under section 50 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 and section 49A of the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967. The majority of the references concern the need for HIE to be consulted or notified in certain circumstances, or for that body to have discussions with the other parties to the Agreement in certain circumstances. The Agreement also provides for HIE to be given a period in which to seek an alternative operator for the funicular railway in the event of the Cairngorm Chairlift Company Limited discontinuing its operation. If an alternative operator cannot be found, there is a duty placed on that Company to dismantle the railway and reinstate the site. Should the Company fail to fulfil that obligation, the Agreement requires HIE to fulfil it.

  Any future expenditure on the funicular railway incurred by Highland and Islands Enterprise as a result of the application of these conditions would be subject to the usual approval arrangements which apply to the annual grant in aid to that body and to any specific approval arrangements which apply to projects involving expenditure beyond the budgetary limits delegated to that body.

  Dounreay
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 6 March 1998,Official Report, columns 778–79, on Dounreay, if it is the
  452
  responsibility of the Health and Safety Executive to monitor the stability of the contents of the storage shaft and other radioactive waste repositories at Dounreay. [34165]

  Mr. MacDonald
  Responsibility for safety at the Dounreay site, including monitoring the stability of radioactive waste, lies with the site operator, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority.

  School Bus Services
  Sir Robert Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures he proposes to improve safety on school bus services in Scotland. [34029]

  Mr. McLeish
  The Government recognise the importance of high safety standards on school transport. Regulations, which are already in place, cover issues such as bus and coach construction, operator licensing and conduct and these apply equally across the board to all Public Service Vehicles. Construction regulations have recently been amended to require seat belts for children on minibuses and coaches when used on specific journeys. Decisions about the provision of supervision on school transport are for education authorities, as part of their overall responsibilities to provide a school transport service. Guidance on the provision of school transport, including safety matters, was issued by The Scottish Office to local authorities in April 1996.

  Scottish Parliament
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the size of the membership of the Scottish Parliament following the next report of the Boundary Commission, pursuant to Clause 81 of the Scotland Bill. [34276]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 13 March 1998]: None. I cannot anticipate the recommendations of the Parliamentary Boundary Commission for Scotland.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to attend a meeting of the Council of Ministers of the European Union in relation to agriculture. [34278]

  Mr. MacDonald
  [holding answer 13 March 1998]: My noble Friend the Minister with responsibility for agriculture, the environment and fisheries in Scotland attended two Agriculture Councils last year and will attend future meetings as appropriate.

  Work-related Injuries
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of(a) claims brought and (b) occasions when compensation was paid, by Scottish courts in respect of injuries received at work for each of the last five years indicating the number of injuries recorded per 100,000 persons at work in Scotland in each year or as much information as is readily available to him. [34572]

  Mr. McLeish
  This information is not held centrally.

  Tuition Fees
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from student representatives at Scottish universities about(a) the introduction of tuition fees in higher education and (b) the different treatment of students from Scotland and Europe as against those from England, Wales and Northern Ireland in relation to tuition fees for the fourth year of a Scottish degree course. [34586]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have received representations on both matters from the National Union of Students (Scotland), the Students' Associations of Dundee, Edinburgh, and St. Andrews Universities; and the Students' Representative Councils of Aberdeen and Glasgow Universities. Napier University Students' Association made representations on the introduction of tuition fees in higher education; Heriot Watt University Students' Association made representations on the different treatment of English, Welsh and Northern Irish students compared to those from Scotland.

  Fisheries
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking in respect of the representation of Scottish fishing interests in the European Council of Ministers after the setting up of the Scottish Parliament. [34589]

  Mr. MacDonald
  The Government remain committed to involving Scottish Ministers in relevant Council meetings, which could include Scottish Ministers speaking for the UK in appropriate cases. Whoever speaks will do so on behalf of the UK as a whole and to an agreed UK position. Scottish fishing interests will therefore continue to be properly represented.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Middle East
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to further the Middle East peace process through the targeting of(a) the UK's and (b) the EU's aid to the region. [34727]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The Department for International Development plans to continue a programme of high quality development projects in the West Bank and Gaza, which are designed to be supportive of the Middle East Peace Process. Our projects are targeted at reducing poverty, strengthening the private sector and building up the Palestinian Authority's (PA) administrative capacity. We will do what we can to help give a new impetus to the peace process.

  The EC aid programme to the PA, which is due to expire in 1998, has helped the Peace Process survive under very difficult circumstances. The UK will support its renewal which would demonstrate the EU's continuing commitment to the process. The programme is currently being evaluated by the European Commission and we will be seeking to ensure that lessons learned about quality and effectiveness are fully taken into account in the future.

  Sanctions
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress has been made in her plans to develop sanctions which hit elites rather than the mass of the people. [34769]

  Mr. Foulkes
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him by my hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for International Development on 28 January 1998,Official Report, column 288.

WALES

  National Assembly
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the cost to each council which put forward a bid for the site of the National Assembly for Wales of that bid. [33279]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  This is a matter for each individual Council, who will have determined the level of expenditure appropriate to the submission of their proposal.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he is taking in respect of the representation of Welsh farming interests in the European Council of Ministers after the setting up of the National Assembly for Wales. [34587]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  Assembly Secretaries will be able to play a part in relevant meetings of the Council of Ministers as part of the UK team. As the UK lead Minister, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will have overall responsibility for the UK's line in agricultural negotiations. Assembly Secretaries will be able to speak, with the Minister's agreement, to advance the UK line in Brussels.

  The arrangements will be spelled out in concordats which will be agreed in due course between the Assembly and the Government.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many non-career civil servants were appointed to his Department between 1 May 1996 and 30 April 1997. [33275]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  Between 1 May 1996 and 30 April 1997, my Department appointed 293 non-career civil servants on short term, temporary appointments.

  Tuberculosis
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many TB cases there were in Wales in each year since 1990; and if he will make a statement. [33536]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The information is given in the following table.
  455

  Notifications of TB in wales

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Respiratory system

  163

  136

  173

  145

  151

  142

  123

  151

  Meninges & Central

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Nervous System

  4

  3

  3

  2

  1

  —

  3

  1

  Other forms

  27

  27

  25

  52

  29

  38

  35

  51

  Total

  194

  166

  201

  199

  181

  180

  161

  203

  Source:

  Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre

  Gwent Tertiary College
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if, in respect of the projects for which Gwent Tertiary College successfully requested EU funding in the past three years, he will list the projects which(a) have and (b) have not received that funding and in each case the amounts received by (i) the college and (ii) the project; [34532]

  (2) if he will list the projects for which Gwent Tertiary College received European Union funding in each of the last three years; [33904]

  (3) if he will list the projects submitted by the Gwent Tertiary College for European funding in the past three years; which were successful; and what sums they involved. [33457]

  Mr. Hain
  A list of the projects has been placed in the Library of the House. ERDF Payments are made in arrears on receipt of claims submitted quarterly for the actual expenditure incurred by the college on a project. ESF payments are made to the successful applicant and not directly to projects. The applicant organisation is then responsible for delivering the project in line with the approved project specification.

  Welsh Tourist Board
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the grant-in-aid to the Welsh Tourist Board in(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98 and (c) 1998–99. [33503]

  Mr. Hain
  Welsh Office grant-in-aid for the Wales Tourist Board in the period 1996 to 1999 is as follows:

  £ million

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Outturn

  Forecast outturn

  Plans

  Net provision

  14.7

  15.0

  14.4

  Farmers Subsidies
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the total sum paid to farmers in Wales under the(a) sheep annual premium, (b) suckler cow premium, (c) hill livestock compensation allowance, (d) arable area payment, (e) Tir Cymen and (f) environmentally sensitive area payment schemes in the last full year for which figures are available. [34510]
  456
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  Total expenditure in Wales during 1996–97 was as follows:

  £000

  (a) Sheep Annual Premium Scheme

  131,481

  (b) Suckler Cow Premium Scheme

  38,320

  (c) Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances Scheme

  27,852

  (d) Arable Crops Area Payments

  11,983

  (e) Tir Cymen

  4,900

  (f) Environmentally Sensitive Areas

  3,456

  Road Maintenance
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the amount spent by each unitary authority on road maintenance in each of the last five years. [34350]

  Mr. Hain
  The available information is given in the following table. Information for unitary authorities is not available prior to 1996–97.

  Local authority expenditure on road maintenance1

  £000

  Net current aexpenditure

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  21996–97

  31997–98

  Blaenau Gwent

  —

  —

  —

  3,704

  3,525

  Bridgend

  —

  —

  —

  6,398

  6,283

  Caerphilly

  —

  —

  —

  7,919

  7,922

  Cardiff

  —

  —

  —

  12,694

  13,308

  Carmarthenshire

  —

  —

  —

  13,192

  12,945

  Ceredigion

  —

  —

  —

  7,178

  6,945

  Conwy

  —

  —

  —

  5,732

  5,409

  Denbighshire

  —

  —

  —

  5,327

  5,055

  Flintshire

  —

  —

  —

  6,805

  7,064

  Gwynedd

  —

  —

  —

  9,007

  9,562

  Isle of Anglesey

  —

  —

  —

  4,214

  4,572

  Merthyr Tydfil

  —

  —

  —

  2,464

  2,335

  Monmouthshire

  —

  —

  —

  4,728

  4,259

  Neath Port Talbot

  —

  —

  —

  7,362

  7,379

  Newport

  —

  —

  —

  4,059

  4,212

  Pembrokeshire

  —

  —

  —

  7,965

  8,043

  Powys

  —

  —

  —

  12,999

  12,337

  Rhondda Cynon Taff

  —

  —

  —

  7,012

  7,483

  Swansea

  —

  —

  —

  8,487

  8,430

  The Vale of Glamorgan

  —

  —

  —

  5,261

  4,766

  Torfaen

  —

  —

  —

  3,265

  3,149

  Wrexham

  —

  —

  —

  5,269

  5,373

  Total Wales current expenditure

  146,090

  149,550

  157,134

  151,041

  150,356

  457

  Local authority expenditure on road maintenance1

  £000

  Net current aexpenditure

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  21996–97

  31997–98

  Total Wales capital expenditure4

  116,568

  132,477

  151,119

  —

  —

  1Includes structural maintenance of roads, bridges and other structures, and other highways maintenance expenditure including lighting and street cleaning.

  2Revised estimates.

  3Budget.

  4Detailed capital expenditure information is not yet available for 1996–97 or 1997–98.

  District Health Authorities
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will provide a comparative list of Welsh district health authorities, or combinations of district health authorities, as constituted before and after 1 April 1996. [34355]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  Prior to 1 April 1995, there were 9 district health authorities (DHAs) in Wales: Gwynedd, Clwyd, Powys, East Dyfed, Pembrokeshire, West Glamorgan, Mid Glamorgan, South Glamorgan and Gwent. On 1 April 1995, the East Dyfed and Pembrokeshire DHAs merged to form Dyfed DHA. There were thus 8 DHAs, matching the 8 family health service authorities (FHSAs) and 8 former counties.

  On 1 April 1996, health authorities and local government in Wales were reorganised. The 8 DHAs and 8 FHSAs were reformed into 5 unified health authorities, as follows.

  A new North Wales Health Authority was created covering the former Gwynedd and Clwyd (with a minor change to the boundary between the former Clwyd and Powys, to reflect new local authority boundaries). A new Dyfed Powys Health Authority was formed covering the former Dyfed and Powys. The new Morgannwg Health Authority covered former West Glamorgan plus that part of the former Mid Glamorgan DHA area that fell within the new county borough of Bridgend. The new Gwent Health Authority included the former Gwent DHA area plus that part of the former Mid Glamorgan DHA area falling within the new county borough of Caerphilly. The new Bro Taf Health Authority covered former South Glamorgan plus the remaining parts of the former Mid Glamorgan DHA area.

  Exchange Rates
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will provide additional assistance to companies in Wales to relieve the effects of(a) changes in the exchange rate since 1 May 1997 and (b) changes to the ACT rules in July 1997. [33618]

  Mr. Hain
  No. The Government recognise the difficulties for exporters and manufacturers affected by the strong pound and the effect on exchange rates and exports is a factor that the Bank of England takes into account in determining interest rates. The Government are committed to delivering a stable macro-economic framework in which businesses will be better able to plan for the long term.
  458
  The abolition of payable tax credits in July 1997 removed a significant distortion from the tax system which encouraged companies to pay out profits as dividends rather than to retain them for investment. It was accompanied by 2 per cent. cuts in the main and the small companies' rates of corporation tax, backdated to 1 April 1997. These changes are for the long-term benefit of the UK economy, as so for companies in Wales.

  Publications
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those European Commission(a) newsletters, (b) magazines and (c) occasional publications to which his Department subscribes. [33654]

  Mr. Hain
  The Welsh Office subscribes to the following European Commission publications:

  COM and SEC series papers

  Eurobarometer

  European Economy

  European File

  Eurostat Quarterly National Accounts

  The Week in Europe.

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list, for each offer of regional selective assistance made during 1997, the percentage of the project's capital cost represented by the grant offered; and if he will indicate, for each offer, if it related to an area of full or intermediate assisted area status. [33706]

  Mr. Hain
  In 1997, companies in Wales accepted 161 offers of Regional Selective Assistance. Information about the capital costs of individual projects is treated as "commercial in confidence". The relationship between offer levels and capital costs varies widely according to the type of project and reflects the selective nature of RSA whereby projects are secured for the minimum necessary cost.

  In development areas offer values ranged from 8.5% to 29.4% of capital costs and in intermediate areas from 1.97% to 18.7%.

  Farm Incomes
  Sir Raymond Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he is taking to protect Welsh farmers from further falls in their income. [33713]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The Government have announced an agrimonetary aid package for the livestock industry of £85 million, of which just over £12 million will go to farmers in Wales. A further £70 million was announced in February to meet the costs of the Specified Risk Material Controls on cattle, sheep and goats and the entire start-up costs of the Cattle Traceability System.

  In addition, my right hon. Friend is engaged in constructive dialogue with farmers' leaders about how a viable long-term future for Welsh agriculture can be created.

  Farm Payments
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to improve the administration of payments to farmers in Wales. [35065]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  Staff in the Welsh Office are working extremely hard to make payments to farmers, within the constraints of the current administrative arrangements. I am very conscious, however, that those arrangements need to be improved. As part of the Government's Comprehensive Spending Review process, the Welsh Office is, therefore, inviting consultants to tender for a study to assess the options for securing an improved service. I am writing to all hon. Members for Welsh constituencies with more information on the study, sending a copy of my letter to the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) for information, and placing a copy in the Library of the House.

  Rights of Entry
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) powers of entry or (b) rights he has created or is currently creating in legislation since 1 May 1997. [34588]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  There are none.

  Welsh Health Common Services Authority
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what cost-sharing arrangements apply with respect to the void office areas in the leasing arrangements between his Department and the Welsh Health Common Services authority. [34767]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  All of the lease costs of Crickhowell House are paid direct by WHCSA to the landlord, Grovenor Waterside; no payments are made to the Department. The costs of vacant space have been covered from WHCSA reserves whilst the lease of Crickhowell House has been put on the market by WHCSA to obtain alternative tenants.

  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the remaining units of the Welsh Health Common Services Authority which have(a) been successfully market-tested and (b) remain in Crickhowell House; and if he will list the square footage occupied, and the rental or equivalent paid to his Department as head-lessees per square foot per annum. [34766]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  The units of WHCSA which have been market tested and retained within the Authority and remain in Crickhowell House are:

  Prescription Pricing Service

  Health Solutions Wales

  Welsh Health Supplies.

  These three units occupy 27,945 sq ft of space. Other units of WHCSA occupy a further 71,051 sq ft of space.

  All rental costs of Crickhowell House are paid directly by WHCSA to the landlord Grovenor Waterside. No payments are made to the Department.

  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give details of the rental and service charge arrangements currently applying as between 460
  (a)Associated British Ports and his Department and (b) his Department and the Welsh Health Common Services Authority. [34768]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  The details of arrangements with the landlord, Grovenor Waterside, are commercially confidential, under Sections 7 and 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. All moneys due to Grovenor Waterside are paid through WHCSA from the resources available to them.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Central Services Agency
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consultation there was with health boards and trusts about the required post-qualification experience of applicants for the post of Chief Legal Adviser in the Central Services Agency prior to the most recent advertising of the post. [33588]

  Mr. Worthington
  It is most unusual for Health and Social Services bodies to consult with each other on the contents of Personnel Specifications for such posts. There was no consultation in 1995 or for the current vacancy.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many years post-qualification experience was required when the post of Director of Legal Services and Chief Legal Adviser in the Central Services Agency was advertised in(a) 1973, (b) 1984, (c) 1987 and (d) 1995. [33586]

  Mr. Worthington
  10 years post-qualification experience was required in 1987 and 1995. The job files relating to 1978 and 1984 have been destroyed and thus the information is not available for these years.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how long the current Chief Executive of the Central Services Agency has been in post; and how many directorates appointed during this period have been filled by(a) Roman Catholics, (b) Protestants and (c) others. [33590]

  Mr. Worthington
  The current Chief Executive was appointed to the position in April 1997. Since then, no Director posts have been filled.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what salary was offered for the post of Chief Legal Adviser to the Central Services Agency when the post was advertised most recently; and how many other legal posts in the public sector in Northern Ireland offer a comparable salary with the same requirement of post-qualification experience. [33589]

  Mr. Worthington
  The salary offered was £44,616–£53,539 per annum, inclusive of performance related pay up to a maximum of 20%

  No proper comparisons can be made across the full range of legal posts existing within the public sector in Northern Ireland as the experience and qualifications are matters for each employing authority and will depend on the particular needs and requirements of the post in question. For example, the Department of Finance and Personnel has 8 legal posts which offer a comparable salary, all of which require post-qualification experience

  461
  of at least 3 years. There are also 3 legal grades in the Department of the Environment which would offer some comparable, or at least an overlapping salary to that offered to the Director of Legal Services in the Agency. These grades are:

  Grade

  Salary range

  Senior Legal Assistant

  £26,743–47,248

  Deputy Registrar—Land Registers NI

  £39,711–50,360

  Chief Executive and Registrar of Title

  £39,050–61,340

  In these 3 legal grades, post qualification experience is part of the promotion requirement.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the post of Chief Legal Adviser in the Central Services Agency was last advertised; and how many years post-qualification experience was then required of applicants; and what were the reasons for changes in this requirement since the previous occasion. [33587]

  Mr. Worthington
  The title "Chief Legal Adviser" was replaced by "Director of Legal Services" in 1990/91. It is assumed that the reference to Chief Legal Adviser includes Director of Legal Services.

  The position of Director of Legal Services (DLS) was last advertised on 13 February 1998. Five years post-qualification experience was required of applicants. The DLS provides not only a professional legal service, but is responsible for the management of the Directorate of Legal Services and for making a management contribution to the corporate and strategic management of the CSA

  The Specification was amended following the normal procedure when a post becomes vacant. It is now considered that the requirement for 10 years experience as a solicitor may preclude competent individuals from applying. Given the importance of this post, the Agency would wish to have as large a pool of applicants as possible. Selection will be on the basis of merit as measured against the professional and managerial competencies required for the post.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who is the Acting Chief Legal Adviser to the Central Services Agency; what is his salary; and how many years he has of post-qualification experience. [33591]

  Mr. Worthington
  The Acting Director of Legal Services is Mr. Alphonsus Maginness. Mr. Maginness's salary is £44,146 and he has 6.5 years of post-qualification experience.

  Irish Medium Education
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans she has to give(a) recognition and (b) legal status to Gaeloiliuint. [33594]

  Mr. Worthington
  The Department recognises Gaeloiliuint as an organisation which represents Irish-medium education interests. There are no plans to give legal status to Gaeloiliuint.
  462
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment she has made of the extent to which Gaeloiliuint represents all Irish-medium schools in Northern Ireland. [33595]

  Mr. Worthington
  No formal assessment has been made of the extent to which Gaeloiliuint represents all Irish-medium schools in Northern Ireland.

  Police Overtime
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list for each month for each of the last three years and the current year to the latest available date, the sums expended on overtime payments to the RUC and the RUCR. [34003]

  Mr. Ingram
  The table gives the information requested. It should be noted that overtime is paid in the month after it is actually worked.

  RUC overtime figures

  £000

  Month

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  April

  6,956

  3,991

  4,287

  5,402

  May

  6,404

  3,321

  4,122

  5,036

  June

  7,990

  4,957

  5,596

  7,189

  July

  7,145

  3,677

  4,587

  5,703

  August

  7,507

  6,538

  11,435

  10,643

  September

  7,410

  5,253

  6,490

  6,039

  October

  5,542

  4,051

  4,694

  4,296

  November

  5,162

  4,147

  5,705

  4,325

  December

  4,590

  4,107

  5,142

  3,609

  January

  6,011

  4,293

  5,679

  4,500

  February

  6,018

  3,170

  6,051

  4,473

  March

  4,922

  3,588

  4,843

  3,330

  Industrial Investment
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the(a) level of financial investment by and (b) number of jobs created by the Industrial Development Board for Northern Ireland within Northern Ireland for the years 1987 to 1997. [34237]

  Mr. Ingram
  A list of the jobs promoted and safeguarded by the Industrial Development Board together with assistance offered and total project costs is set out in the table.

  Jobs promoted and jobs safeguarded by the Industrial Development Board together with assistance offered and total investment

  Year

  Jobs promoted

  Jobs safeguarded

  Assistance offered (£ million)

  Total investment (£ million)

  1987–88

  5,283

  5,073

  97

  302

  1988–89

  5,653

  2,430

  107

  400

  1989–90

  5,131

  4,184

  93

  440

  1990–91

  4,402

  4,054

  82

  315

  1991–92

  2,341

  2,689

  64

  240

  1992–93

  4,104

  1,877

  95

  344

  1993–94

  5,554

  3,590

  127

  505

  1994–95

  4,994

  3,802

  102

  394

  1995–96

  5,678

  2,484

  151

  507

  1996–97

  6,005

  5,577

  158

  638

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Tourism
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what proposals he has to encourage domestic tourism; and if he will make a statement. [32911]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  Domestic tourism is indeed, of such importance that one of the Forum Working Groups helping with the development of the Government's tourism strategy is specifically looking at issues which affect it.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he next intends to meet the chairman of the English Tourist Board to discuss projections for the future growth in tourism. [32924]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  My right. hon Friend the Secretary of State will next meet the Chairman of the English Tourist Board on 19 March.

  World Cup 2006
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the prospects for England hosting the 2006 soccer World Cup. [32912]

  Mr. Banks
  I believe that the FA's bid to stage the 2006 World Cup is an excellent one and stands a very good chance of success.

  Mr. Alan Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what support he plans to give to the campaign to host the 2006 World Cup. [32919]

  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what support he plans to give to the campaign to host the 2006 World Cup. [32920]

  Mr. Banks
  The Government are providing the fullest diplomatic and promotional support for the bid. I hold regular meetings with the FA Campaign Team. I have personally discussed the bid with several members of the FIFA Executive Committee, either here in London or in their home countries. I will continue to accompany FA delegations to promote the bid, as Parliamentary business allows.

  Tourism (Yorkshire)
  Mr. Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on how the New Deal can help the tourist industry in Yorkshire. [32913]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  The New Deal will help the tourism industry in Yorkshire, and in the UK as a whole, by providing recruits who can become the well trained workforce which the industry needs to meet its full competitive potential.

  Music
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the contribution of music to the UK economy. [32914]
  464
  Mr. Chris Smith
  Music makes an enormous contribution to the UK economy: the value added is over £2.5 billion, the surplus on overseas trade is over £500 million, and there are over 115,000 people employed full-time in the music business.

  Tourism (South-East)
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport in what ways the new tourism forum will assist the tourist industry in the south-east outside London. [32915]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  I am working closely with the Tourism Forum and its Working Groups to develop an effective, comprehensive strategy for tourism which will benefit all regions, including the South-East outside London, into the next century.

  Public Libraries (IT)
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what progress he has made in encouraging the use of information technology in public libraries. [32917]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I am currently considering a report from my Library and Information Commission which recommends the development of information technology applications by public libraries. We will be responding to the report's recommendations shortly.

  Art Market (London)
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has received concerning London's art market. [32918]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I have received representations from the British Art Market Federation and from individuals. I am aware of the concerns about any measures which may have an effect on the operation of the UK art trade.

  The art trade makes an important contribution to the economy of this country; and the Government wish to ensure that the UK art market maintains its pre-eminent international position.

  London Film Commission
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the future of the London Film Commission. [32939]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  The London Film Commission (LFC) carries out very valuable work. We are currently considering with the LFC and others how to ensure that this work has a secure future.

  European Convention on Human Rights
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the impact that incorporation of the European convention on human rights would have on press regulation and privacy. [32921]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The Human Rights Bill will require the Courts to take account of Strasbourg caselaw in determining conflicts between Convention rights, including privacy and freedom of expression. In practice,
  465
  the Convention has been used in Strasbourg to uphold the freedom of the press. So, in requiring the Courts to take account of Strasbourg caselaw in determining conflicts between Convention rights, the Bill can be expected to strengthen press freedoms. The need for effective press self-regulation, under the Press Complaints Commission, will be as great as it is now.

  Cornish Language
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what proposals he has to support the Cornish language. [32894]

  Mr. Banks
  Cornish is of Celtic origin and has not been spoken as a living language since the 18th century and we have no current plans to promote it. However, I recognise my hon. Friend's close interest in such matters and trust he will use his customary zeal and imagination to draw wider attention to the plight of Cornish.

  Theatre
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he will next review Her Majesty's Government's policy for funding theatres and theatre companies in England; and if he will make a statement. [32922]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  It is for the Arts Council of England and the regional arts boards, in conjunction with local authorities and other funding partners, to formulate policy for theatres within the overall levels of funding available.

  Social Exclusion
  Ms Blears
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the role of his Department in contributing to the Government's policies to combat social exclusion. [32923]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  All the sectors represented by my Department—including sport, the arts and broadcasting—offer opportunities to tackle the problems of social exclusion. We are working with the Social Exclusion Unit to ensure that we fully exploit those opportunities.

  Local Authority Services
  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to assist local authorities in applying the principles of best value to the provision of cultural and leisure services. [32903]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  My Department will work closely with local government to determine how the principles of best value can best be applied to cultural and leisure services. We shall encourage local authorities to produce cultural strategies which will lead them to challenge the purpose of services, compare their performance with others, consult their communities, and introduce competition where appropriate.

  PE (National Curriculum)
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assurances he has sought from the Secretary of State for Education and Employment concerning the role of the PE profession in developing 466
  sport for young people through National Curriculum PE following recent decisions affecting the National Curriculum. [30440]

  Mr. Banks
  I have regular discussions with colleagues in the Department for Education and Employment to discuss a whole range of matters of mutual interest. We are well aware of the important role the PE profession plays in developing sport for young people and will continue to work with them to ensure that the PE and sporting opportunities children get are of the highest standard possible, whether they are delivered through the curriculum or by out-of-school activities.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Right to Roam
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, if he will make a statement about the Church Commissioners' policy towards the right to roam on land which they own. [32938]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  The Commissioners are committed to protecting public rights of way over their land. Where it would not adversely affect their tenants, they are also in favour of the creation of voluntary access opportunities.

MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO

  Site Decontamination
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what representations he has received on decontamination of the Millennium Dome site. [32927]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The decontamination of this site is the responsibility of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and its agency, English Partnerships. The remediation works for the Millennium Experience site have been completed within the agreed timetable and within the original budget.

  Cost
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what is his Department's latest estimate of the cost of the Millennium Experience at Greenwich. [32928]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The budget for the Millennium Experience comprises a grant of £399 million from the Millennium Commission and income totalling £395 million from private sector sponsorship and commercial revenue. The project remains within this budget.

  Spirit Zone
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio if he will make a statement on progress in attracting sponsorship for the Spirit Level zone in the Millennium Dome. [32930]

  Mr. Mandelson
  In addition to the sponsorship commitments announced on 24 February, the New Millennium Experience Company is currently in negotiation with 40 potential sponsor companies for zones in the Dome. I understand that efforts are being made
  467
  through the Second Church Estates Commissioner to establish a fund-raising committee, and I warmly welcome this.

  Millennium Dome Content
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what plans he has to include material of significant historical interest in the Millennium Dome. [32931]

  Mr. Mandelson
  In looking forward to how we can all make a difference in the Third Millennium, we shall try to ensure that the Dome's content will reflect many aspects of our rich heritage.

  Additionally the associated national programme of projects and activities will include an oral history programme which will provide an extraordinary archive of memories recorded by individuals; and a Millennium Treasures project which will identify and celebrate the nation's favourite sites and objects.

  Regional Benefits
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what plans he has to ensure that all parts of the United Kingdom benefit from the Millennium Experience at Greenwich. [32932]

  Mr. Mandelson
  Everyone in the UK will get a chance to take an active part in the Millennium Experience through the associated national programme of events and activities around the country. The programme's aim is to inspire and engage people under the theme Time to make a Difference. It will bring people and communities together in projects which will reflect and contribute to the themes of the Dome. The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) is also working with the Millennium Commission and the other National Lottery distributors to deliver a Millennium Festival. This programme was launched on 27 February in Bristol and a £100 million fund has been created from which it will support millennial celebrations throughout the UK in the year 2000.

  Christian Content
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio how he intends to emphasise the Christian character of the millennium celebrations at Greenwich. [32933]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) is working closely with the Lambeth Consultation Group to ensure that the contents of the Millennium Experience reflects the significance of the Millennium as a Christian anniversary whilst remaining accessible and relevant to those of other faiths and beliefs. The Archbishops' Officer for the Millennium, a member of the Lambeth group, is working with the Company on a part-time basis to advise on how best this can be achieved.

  Visitors
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio if he will estimate the number of people from the north-west who will visit the Dome. [32934]
  468
  Mr. Mandelson
  The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) estimate that 12 million visits will be made to the Millennium Experience. About eight million of those will be from the UK, and I hope that many of those will come from the North West. I also hope that as many people as possible from the North West and across the country participate in the associated Challenge and the Millennium Festival programmes.

  Millennium Experience
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what consultations he has had with(a) the Women's Institutes and (b) the Mothers' Union about his plans for the Millennium Experience. [33809]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The New Millennium Experience Company has not held formal consultations with either body. The company is, however, working with a number of expert panels and groups—including the Advisory Group on accessibility, the Lambeth Group, and the Creative Review Group—to ensure that as broad a range of interests as possible are reflected in developing the content of the Experience, both at the Dome and in the national Challenge programme.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Treaty of Amsterdam (Tapes)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the General Secretariat have informed the Government as President of the Council of Ministers that the tapes of the Treaty of Amsterdam negotiations contain material on opt-in procedures by opt-out Schengen states. [34083]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  No.

  Immigration
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if it is his policy that entry clearance officers should refuse entry to the United Kingdom because an applicant has legally extended a previous visit beyond six months; and if he will make a statement. [34162]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Entry Clearance Officers are required by the Immigration Rules to be satisfied that an applicant qualifies for admission in the capacity sought.

  The fact that a person has legally extended a previous visit to the UK beyond six months is not, of itself, a reason for refusal. But an applicant's record of adherence to undertakings made in connection with previous entry clearance applications is a relevant factor when considering future applications.

  Nepal
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action(a) the United Kingdom and (b) its EU partners are taking to resolve the problem of the Bhutanese refugees currently living in camps in Nepal. [34512]
  469
  Mr. Fatchett
  We shall continue to use every opportunity to encourage the governments of Nepal and Bhutan in their dialogue on this issue. The EU raised the refugee problem in its statement to the Third Committee at the UN General Assembly in November 1997. As Presidency, we are working with EU partners to ensure that our concerns are raised during the forthcoming UN Commission on Human Rights.

  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the Government's policy towards an internationally monitored verification process to determine which of the refugee population in Nepal have a right to return to Bhutan. [34513]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We shall continue our support for UNHCR, who have made it clear that they stand ready to help with any repatriation project agreed between the governments of Bhutan and Nepal.

  GCHQ
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the procedure and timescale he will follow in making a decision on the future location of GCHQ in Cheltenham, indicating progress to date. [34511]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  Tenders for GCHQ's New Accommodation PFI were returned as scheduled on 16 February by all four private sector consortia. GCHQ and its professional advisers are now engaged in the post-tender process. An announcement on the future location of GCHQ is expected during the second half of the year.

  Arms Exports (Iraq)
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made of the quantity of arms exported to Iraq since the Gulf War originating(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) elsewhere. [34344]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The UK has complied with the UN arms embargo since it was imposed on Iraq in 1990 under United Nations Security Council Resolution 661. While we would expect other countries to abide by the embargo, we cannot comment on any supplies that may have reached Iraq from elsewhere.

  Arms Trade
  Mr. Singh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the Government are taking during their presidency of the EU to facilitate the development and implementation of an EU code of conduct on the arms trade. [34241]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Faber) on 2 February 1998,Official Report, columns 542–43. Since 2 February, we have had one round of discussions with our EU partners and a revised draft will be circulated to them shortly.

  Geneva Conference on Disarmament
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to ensure that the Geneva Conference on Disarmament includes multilateral disarmament on its agenda. [34514]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The Conference on Disarmament adopted an agenda for the 1998 session on 20 January. This includes a number of items relevant to multilateral disarmament. We are pressing for the establishment of Ad Hoc Committees to work on a ban on anti-personnel landmines and on a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty.

  Chemical and Biological Weapons
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which countries are currently the subject of international inspections of their chemical and biological weapon capability. [34345]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  One hundred and seven (107) countries are Parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention, and hence subject to the inspections provided for under that Treaty. The Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention does not currently have an inspection regime; but the UK is pressing for the early conclusion of the negotiations on a Protocol which will fill this serious gap. Separate arrangements apply to Iraq, under the relevant UN Security Council resolutions.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contribution in(a) cash terms and (b) as a percentage of the total the UK will make to the running costs of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons over the next five years. [33940]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The UK's assessed contribution for the 1998 budget (calendar) year is:

  UK Dfl 6,755,779 5.32%

  (Dfl 3.376 = £1 on 12/3/98)

  The UK's percentage contribution will decrease slightly as more signatories accede to the Convention over the next few years, for which assessed contributions have yet to be determined.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of recent allegations by Ken Alibekov that Russia has continued to develop biological weapons in contravention of the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention; and if he will make a statement. [33942]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  In 1992, the Russian government admitted that the Soviet Union had conducted an offensive biological weapons programme, in violation of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, and President Yeltsin issued a decree requiring that any non-compliant activity be terminated. Mr. Alibekov's allegations refer to the earlier programme. We continue to urge the Russian Federation to provide assurance of its full compliance with the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention.
  471
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made of the(a) chemical and biological weapons research programmes being undertaken and (b) stocks of such weapons held by (i) Iran, (ii) Syria, (iii) Libya, (iv) China, (v) North Korea and (vi) Sudan; and if he will make a statement. [33944]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Assessments of this type are based on intelligence material on which it has been the practice of successive governments not to comment.

  In the case of Iraq, the information we have supplied about chemical and biological weapons is based on material published by UNSCOM. Nothing comparable exists for these other countries.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps his Department is taking to encourage Egypt to sign and ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention. [33946]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We are committed to making the Chemical Weapons Convention universal. We particularly regret that a number of countries in the Middle East—including Egypt—have not become parties to the Convention. We shall take every suitable opportunity to urge them to do so. As Presidency, we also plan to make EU demarches to that end.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the countries in arrears in their payments to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons; and what is the amount of arrears concerned. [33938]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Most of the 107 State Parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention are currently in arrears with their payments, although the amounts involved are in many cases quite small in either percentage or absolute terms. It may therefore be easier to name those countries which were fully paid up for the 1998 budget year by the eighth session of the OPCW Executive Council from 27–30 January 1998:

  Australia

  Bahrain

  Canada

  Netherlands

  New Zealand

  Slovak Republic

  Sweden

  United Kingdom.

  At that point, some 85.3 per cent. of the 1997 budget contributions and 96.1 per cent. of the 1993–97 Preparatory Commission contributions had been paid. The total arrears until that point amounted to Dfl 16.937,000.
  (Dfl 3.376 = £1 on 12/3/98)

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contribution(a) in cash terms and (b) as a percentage of the total (i) France, (ii) Germany, (iii) the USA and (iv) Japan will be making to the running costs of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons over the next five years. [33939]
  472
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The assessed contributions for these countries for the 1998 budget (calendar) year are:

  Country

  Dfl

  Percentage

  France

  8,152,650

  6.5

  Germany

  11,505,414

  9.06

  USA

  30,611,125

  25.00

  Japan

  19,873,671

  15.65

  Note:
  Dfl 3.376 = £1 on 12 March 1998

  These percentage contributions will decrease slightly as more signatories accede to the Convention over the next few years, for which assessed contributions have yet to be determined.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the cost of disposing of Russian chemical weapons stocks; and how much of that cost in(a) cash terms and (b) as a percentage of the total will be covered by (i) the UK, (ii) France, (iii) Germany, (iv) the USA and (v) Japan. [33941]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The Chemical Weapons Convention makes clear that the responsibility for chemical weapons destruction rests with the possessor state. Without prejudice to this principle, the EU has pledged up to 15 million ECU of TACIS (Technical Assistance to the Commonwealth of Independent States) funding for projects in chemical weapon destruction-related areas. A number of countries have also offered bilateral assistance, including the United States, Germany, the Netherlands, Finland and Sweden. We do not have precise or detailed figures for those countries' offers of assistance, but the total amount of foreign (non-Russian) assistance so far represents only a small proportion of the overall costs—estimated by Russia at more than US$4 billion.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Director-General of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons; and if he will make a statement. [33943]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Neither my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary nor I have met the Director-General of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), Dr. Bustani. But we maintain regular contact with him and his staff through our Embassy in The Hague.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on negotiations on a compliance and verification regime for the Biological Weapons Convention. [33945]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The most recent session of the Ad Hoc Group of States Parties, which is negotiating verification and compliance Protocol to strengthen the Biological Weapons Convention, took place in Geneva from 9–13 March. The UK is playing a leading role in these negotiations. At our initiative, the European Union agreed on 5 March a Common Position which makes clear our determination to promote decisive progress in the negotiations in the course of this year. We believe—not least in the light of the revelations of Iraq's extensive biological weapons programme—that strengthening the Biological Weapons Convention is both urgent and achievable.

  Policy Formulation
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the methods by which policy formulation is conducted within his Department. [33934]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Ministers take policy decisions on the basis of advice from officials. Such advice draws on many sources of information including diplomatic posts, other Governments, and organisations and individuals outside government.

  Foreign Policy Centre
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if his Department will make any financial contribution to the Foreign Policy Centre. [33935]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We have no plans to do so.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements he has established for liaison between his Department and the Foreign Policy Centre. [33937]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The Foreign Policy Centre will present papers to Ministers and FCO officials on its own initiative and invite Ministers and officials to its seminars.

  Antarctic Environmental Protocol
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what expenditure is undertaken by the British Government or agencies on its behalf of the monitoring of tourism and fishing within the area covered by the Antarctic Environmental Protocol. [34304]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Details of tourist and fishing vessels within the Antarctic Treaty Area are recorded by the British Antarctic Survey and the Royal Navy, as appropriate whilst undertaking their other tasks. No separately identifiable expenditure relates to this activity.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what evaluation of reports by the British Antarctic Survey is undertaken by his Department; and how these reports are made available to signatory countries to the Antarctic Environmental Protocol. [34305]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Comprehensive reports on the operations of the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) are submitted and evaluated as required by the permitting provisions of the Antarctic Act 1994. In addition, the annual Report of BAS and the UK's annual Exchange of Information required by the Antarctic Treaty are provided to all Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties, and made publicly available.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects the Secretariat proposed in the Antarctic Environmental Protocol to be established; and where it will be sited. [34303]
  474
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave him on 26 November 1997,Official Report, column 547, and on 21 January 1998, Official Report, column 541. There have been no new developments.

  Although not formally on the agenda, it is likely that the Secretariat will be discussed in the margins of the forthcoming Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting in Tromso, Norway, in May.

  UN Security Council Resolution 425
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 425. [34726]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We have consistently supported UNSCR 425 and the territorial integrity of Lebanon. We welcome Israel's willingness to address this issue. UNSCR 425 does not however provide for any conditions to be set. We believe progress on all tracks of the peace process would help create the conditions for successful implementation of SCR 425.

  Export Initiative
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he proposes to implement his Department's new export initiative based on the recommendations of the Export Forum. [34720]

  Mr. Fatchett
  This Department and the Department of Trade and Industry will shortly make an announcement of a new package of measures to help smaller exporters.

  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how he plans to ensure that there is an improved service for potential exporters from his Department. [34721]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Meeting the needs of potential exporters effectively is key to our commercial work. Together with the Department of Trade and Industry, we are introducing a new Sales Lead Service, to better match sales leads gathered by posts with potential British suppliers. We are also improving and increasing the training of both UK-based and locally engaged staff at all levels. Nearly 40 Foreign Office staff are now studying for the Professionalism in Trade qualification, run in conjunction with the Institute of Export.

  Algeria
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to meet the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Algeria. [34725]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The Algerian Foreign Minister has accepted in principle an invitation to visit London to continue the EU/Algeria political dialogue. No date has been set. Timing will depend on respective diary commitments.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his meeting of 11 March with Wei Jingsheng. [34723]
  475
  Mr. Fatchett
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary had a full and friendly meeting with Mr. Wei Jingsheng on 11 March. My right hon. Friend expressed Britain's continuing concerns on human rights in China and briefed Mr. Wei on the EU's agreed position. Mr. Wei recognised that the UK had spoken out strongly about human rights in China.

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs at what time his meeting with Wei Jingsheng on 11 March terminated. [34694]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  Both I and the Foreign Office Press Office expected Wei Jingsheng to arrive at 12 noon. A photocall had been arranged for that time. I regret that, as a result of an error, Wei Jingsheng was invited for 11 am. As soon as I heard that Wei Jingsheng had arrived, I interrupted the meeting I was in so that I could see him. My meeting with Wei Jingsheng started at 11.15 am and finished shortly before midday. I then resumed the meeting I had earlier interrupted.

  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will made a statement on the Minister of State's visit to Tirana and Skopje on 11 March. [34728]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I met Foreign Minister Milo and the Minister of State at the Prime Ministry, Islami, in Tirana. I emphasised that Contact Group's support for the Albanian Government's responsible and constructive stand on Kosovo. The Albanians reiterated the Government's commitment to a peaceful solution on Kosovo. In Skopje, I met President Gligorov, Prime Minster Crvenkovski and Foreign Minister Handziski who expressed full support for the Contact Group's position. They warmly welcomed the Contact Group's commitment to maintaining an international military presence on the border of Macedonia.

  Departmental Commerciality
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress he has made since 1 May 1997 in making his Department more commercial. [34730]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We are committed to making this Department more business-like. We have introduced a new scheme of short-term attachments of business people to posts. One has already been completed, ten are underway, and two are due to start shortly. Thirty five of our most senior business leaders have agreed to act as Ambassadors for British business, working with our posts when they are overseas.

  Human Rights (China)
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had concerning this year's UNCHR resolution to draw attention to China's record on human rights with the UN Human Rights Commissioner; and if he will publish a minute of the meeting. [34724]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The Minister for State, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) discussed the European Union decision not to support a476
  resolution on China at the UNCHR when he met the UN High Commission on Human Rights on 9 March 1998. We have no plans to publish a minute of that meeting.

  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations were made to him by Wei Jingsheng during their meeting of 11 March concerning his decision not to support this year's UNCHR resolution drawing attention to China's record on human rights. [34722]

  Mr. Fatchett
  At their meeting on 11 March, Mr. Wei said that the EU dialogue with China had not produced positive results and spoke in favour of a CHR resolution. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary assured him that the UK and its EU partners remained totally committed to pressing for improvements in China's human rights record. We believed the dialogue-based approach offered the best prospects.

  Human Rights
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what practice is adopted in British embassies for the monitoring of human rights matters. [34308]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  As part of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary's commitment to put human rights at the centre of foreign policy, Foreign Office departments have now begun to formulate country human rights strategies to focus policies and project work in respect of countries where human rights concerns exist. The on-going monitoring by posts and departments of respect for human rights, through contacts with both government and civil society, will contribute to this process.

  The first annual human rights report will provide an additional opportunity for the public to comment on the government's human rights activities and to assist us in identifying the way forward.

  Internet
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs at what time on 11 March his Department's website was updated to include the FCO Daily Bulletin for that day. [34729]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The Daily Bulletin was posted on the FCO Website at 13.38 on Tuesday 11 March 1998.

HEALTH

  Childhood Cancer
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the trends over the last 20 years, in cancer incidence in children, with particular reference to cancers of the CNS and leukaemia(a) nationally and (b) in the area covered by the East Anglian Regional Health Authority. [33385]

  Mr. Boateng
  Tables showing the numbers of newly diagnosed cases, and crude and directly age standardised rates per 100,000 population for all leukaemias (ICD8 204–207, ICD9 204–208) and cancers of the central nervous system (ICD 8 and 9, 191–192), for children
  477
  (aged under 15) in a) England and Wales, and (b) East Anglian Regional Health Authority, in the years 1971–1992, have been placed in the Library.

  The trends were examined by fitting regressions to each time series. The results were:
  Leukaemias
  England and Wales
  The directly age standardised rates in males showed a rise of 10 per cent. over the 21 year period; the trend was at borderline significance—p = 0.1.
  The directly age standardised rates in females showed a 19 per cent. rise between 1971 and 1992; the trend was significant at the 5 per cent. Level—p = 0.01
  East Anglian RHA
  There was a downward trend in the rates for males, not quite reaching significance at the 5 per cent. level, but visual inspection shows a step at the end of the 1970s (higher in the 1970s and lower in the 1980s) with no obvious trend over the last 14 years.
  There was no trend in the rates for females.
  Cancers of the central nervous system
  There were no significant trends at all in either England and Wales or the East Anglian RHA.

  It is difficult to separate true increases in incidence from improvements in case ascertainment by regional cancer registers. The number of cases in England and Wales for leukaemia and cancers of the central nervous system are not large compared with all ages and other cancers, and the numbers for the East Anglian RHA are very small, hence the apparent large fluctuations in numbers and rates from year to year.

  The Childhood Cancer Research Group (CCRG), which receives core and project funding from the Department and the Scottish Office, has examined trends in incidence of childhood cancers. They have found little evidence of any increase in incidence of cancers of the central nervous system. There appears to be a small increase in childhood leukaemias but it is not possible to draw any conclusions at this stage about the possible causes of this. The CCRG will continue to investigate trends in incidence and the possible causes of any increase, or decrease, in the incidence of these malignancies.

  Renal Services
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the provision of renal services by the South Lancashire NHS Trust. [33953]

  Mr. Milburn
  It is for the health authority to decide the appropriate services for the local population. The health authority's
  strategy envisages development of a 'hub and spoke' model of care with the Royal Preston Hospital acting as the 'hub' for most areas of Lancashire and South Cumbria, the exception being the West Lancashire part of the District where it is envisaged that the Royal Liverpool Hospital would continue to act as the 'hub'.

  Although implementation of many of the recommendations of the strategy are subject to available resources and competing priorities, the clinical needs of patients will be given priority.

  NHS Productivity
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to measure changes in the productivity of the National Health Service. [34027]

  Mr. Milburn
  We are committed to a revised approach to measuring National Health Service performance. We are currently consulting on a new national framework for assessing performance, which will be used to demonstrate the progress of the NHS in making best use of its resources to ensure that the quality of local health services and the health of local people are getting better every year. The new approach will include demanding targets on unit costs and productivity throughout the NHS, with NHS trusts required to publish and benchmark their costs on a consistent basis.

  Organ Donations
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has evaluated into the advantages of introducing a requirement for individuals to indicate their preferences in regard to organ donation. [34015]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Department is not aware of any research into this possibility. We are currently considering policy options for increasing organ donation. Organ donation is a very sensitive issue and any action taken must command public confidence.

  Kidney Transplants
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many kidney transplants were performed in each year since 1990; [34011]

  (2) how many patients were on waiting lists for kidney transplants in each year since 1990. [34010]

  Mr. Boateng
  This information is not collected centrally. However, I understand from the United Kingdom Transplant Support Services Authority that the figures are:

  Cadaveric kidney transplants performed in the United Kingdom

  Year

  Number

  1990

  1,730

  1991

  1,621

  1992

  1,641

  1993

  1,571

  1994

  1,610

  1995

  1,645

  1996

  1,545

  1997

  1,535

  Patients on waiting lists for kidney transplants

  Year

  Number

  1990

  3,185

  1991

  3,504

  1992

  3,768

  1993

  3,949

  1994

  3,957

  1995

  4,068

  1996

  4,345

  1997

  4,460

  479
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the estimated survival time for a recipient of a kidney transplant. [34012]

  Mr. Boateng
  The United Kingdom Transplant Support Services Authority survival estimates for patients who have received a first cadaveric kidney transplant in the United Kingdom or Republic of Ireland are as follows:

  Survival

  1 Year—92 per cent.

  3 Years—86 per cent.

  5 Years—80 per cent.

  10 Years—63 per cent.

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the current estimated costs of(a) a kidney transplant and (b) one year's kidney dialysis. [34013]

  Mr. Boateng
  In 1996 (the latest year available) the cost of a renal transplant operation varied between £10,000 and £15,000 with follow-up treatment costing around £3,000 per year.

  In 1996 (the latest year available), the cost of hospital haemodialysis varied between £145 to £170 per session averaging £25,000 per patient per year. The cost of minimal care haemodialysis was in the region of £20,000 per year. The cost of home haemodialysis was about £1,200 per patient per month (about £15,000 per year) and the cost of continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis was about £1,675 per month (about £20,000 per year).

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to publish further material on the study into the impact of the national minimum wage on NHS staff costs referred to in Government evidence to the Low Pay Commission. [34300]

  Mr. Milburn
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) on 2 March 1998,Official Report, column 486.

  Continence Products
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 9 March 1998,Official Report, column 65, concerning the reasons for a fall in the number of items purchased by the NHS National Supply Trust, if he will list those other factors that contributed to the drop in value and volume. [34500]

  Mr. Boateng
  I have nothing further to add to the answer I gave on 9 March 1998,Official Report, column 65.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 9 March 1998,Official Report, column 65, concerning the selling of continence products, if he will ask the Chief Executive of the NHS Management Executive to write again to NHS Trust Chief Executives. [34499]

  Mr. Boateng
  As this guidance is extant, there are currently no plans to re-issue it.

  Whittington Hospital
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his oral statement in the respect of future expansion of the Whittington Hospital of 3 February 1998,Official Report, column 844, when he expects funding to be available. [34311]

  Mr. Milburn
  The National Health Service Executive has asked the Whittington Hospital NHS Trust to bring forward proposals to improve the building fabric of the hospital. This needs to be handled through the capital planning process under which issues of funding will be addressed. The first stage of this process is the production of a strategic context document which summarises the trust's plans for developing its services and puts this in the context of the health authorities' plans for the local provision of health care. Following this, the trust can start to develop its business case for the redevelopment of the site leading, in due course, to the creation of a suitable environment for the delivery of modern health care in this part of north London. We acknowledge the Turnberg Report's emphasis on the need for swift action, but it will take some time to work through the necessary planning process.

  Clinical Returns
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give details of progress made in providing statutory clinical returns to ICD-10 specifications using Read Codes Version 3; and if he will make a statement. [34765]

  Mr. Milburn
  Read Codes Version 3 contains cross-references to the International Classification of Diseases version 10 (ICD-10). This allows users to produce data required for central statistical returns in ICD-10 format.

  Pembrokeshire and Derwen National Health Service Trust is using Read Codes Version 3 to produce such data for central statistical returns and has evaluated the cross-references to ICD-10. It concluded in a report that
  "Read 3 now adequately supports the business and clinical information requirements of the trust with respect to diagnoses and procedures".

  Copies of this report have been placed in the Library.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to discuss with the American authorities their intention to redefine organic food, enabling greater use of genetically modified organisms. [34098]

  Mr. Rooker
  The United States Department of Agriculture has published proposed rules for organic food production and has invited comments. These proposals contain several controversial features and the Government are responding both via the European Community and in the context of the Codex Committee on Food Labelling. We are making plain that we will accept only organic imports to the European Community that are produced and certified under standards equivalent to our own.

  Departmental Buildings
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total expenditure by his Department on (i) building maintenance and (ii) office running costs, in the last year for which figures are available(a) in total and (b) broken down by offices and buildings in (1) London and (2) Scotland. [34227]

  Mr. Morley
  The latest complete financial year for which figures are available is 1996/97. In that year, a total of £26,725,000 was spent by the Department on building maintenance; this figure includes maintenance work, repairs and work carried out under facilities management contracts. Of the total, £3,658,000 related to offices and buildings in London while the total for Scotland was £215,000. It should be noted that the Department had only four properties in Scotland in that year.

  The total expenditure by the Department in 1996/97 on office running costs (defined here as spending on utilities) was £3,483,000. Of this, a total of £411,000 related to buildings and offices in London and a total of £39,000 to property in Scotland.

  Greenland Fishing Waters
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what payments are made by the EU for access to Greenland fishing waters. [34299]

  Mr. Morley
  Under its fisheries agreement with Greenland, the EU pays 37,700,000 ECU annually for catch quotas in Greenland waters.

  Quota Hopping
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which section of his Department prepared the December 1996 supplementary memorandum for the inter-governmental conference on quota hopping. [33668]

  Mr. Morley
  The supplementary memorandum on quota hopping was tabled at the inter-governmental conference in December 1996 on behalf of the previous UK Government.

  Farm Subsidies
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will state his projections for the average level of subsidy per farm holding to be paid to(a) hill farmers, (b) dairy farmers and (c) cereal farmers for 1997–98. [33293]

  Mr. Morley
  The projections of average level of subsidy per full-time in England in 1997–98 are as follows:

  (a) Hill farms £25,000;

  (b) dairy farms £4,800 and

  (c) cereals farms £39,700.

  These amounts include the livestock aid package of £85m which was announced on 3 February.

  Consultants
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the expenditure of his(a) Department, (b) agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies on external
  482
  consultants in (i) 1995–96, (ii) 1996–97, (iii) 1997–98 to date and (iv) 1997–98 full year; and if he will also estimate the cost savings resulting from the employment of such consultants for each of the above years. [26586]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 5 February 1998]The sums spent by the Department, and by its Agencies and non-Departmental Public Bodies, on external consultants for the years specified by the hon. Member are as given in the table.

  £

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98 April—December

  1997–98 Total

  Core MAFF

  12,266,550

  10,400,134

  4,938,835

  10,102,677

  Agencies

  1,513,975

  1,611,678

  687,330

  1,047,442

  NDPBS

  183,350

  766,253

  1,221,165

  1,532,431

  Total

  13,963,875

  12,778,065

  6,847,330

  12,682,550

  The expenditure has resulted in the development of new and enhanced systems and working methods and from the transfer of the consultants' expertise and skills in certain fields to permanent staff.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Student Maintenance Grants
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will estimate the additional cost of maintaining existing levels of maintenance grants to students and not allowing the means testing of tuition fees in the next three years. [33462]

  Dr. Howells
  A policy of maintaining means-tested maintenance grants at current levels and continuing to meet tuition fees in full for home and EU full-time undergraduates and students of initial teacher training would not impose any costs in 1998–99. It would lead to forgone savings estimated at £100 million in 1999–2000 and £150 million in 2000–01, rising to £1.1 billion by 2015–16. These figures are for the United Kingdom and at 1995–96 prices. They do not reflect our decision to pay out loans on a termly basis, which released money in 1998–99.

  Further Education (Funding)
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the total number of applications(a) received and (b) approved by the Further Education Funding Council restructuring fund for (i) 1993–94, (ii) 1994–95 and (iii) 1995–96 within the categories (1) teaching staff, (2) support staff and (3) management staff. [33605]

  Dr. Howells
  The number of applications received and approved by the Further Education Funding Council Restructuring Fund is set out in the table.

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Applications received by the FEFC

  1,563

  3,042

  5,588

  Applications approved by the FEFC

  1,430

  2,841

  4,850

  483
  Neither colleges nor FEFC distinguished between teaching, support or management staff in making or processing these applications.

  Undergraduate Students (Fees and Grants)
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the average cost of tuition fees for undergraduate students; and what is the current maximum maintenance grant available to such students. [33799]

  Dr. Howells
  The average fee paid on behalf of mandatory award holders by local education authorities in England and Wales in the academic year 1997–98 is estimated to be £1,250.

  The current maximum maintenance grant available in 1997–98 (exclusive of any additional allowances to which the student may be entitled) is £2,160.

  Sixth Form College Lecturers
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidance his Department has issued to sixth form college lecturers on contractual changes since 1994. [33918]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department has issued no guidance to sixth form college lecturers on contractual changes since 1994.

  Brewing Industry
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will take measures to safeguard jobs in the brewing industry. [33914]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  We shall continue with policies of economic growth and employability, geared to the creation of employment opportunities for all, in the brewing industry as elsewhere.

  New Deal (Women)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he is taking through the New Deal to encourage young women to enter a more diverse range of occupations. [34184]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The New Deal for young people aged 18–24 is designed to help improve the job prospects of all young people who have been out of work and claiming Jobseeker's Allowance for six months, or more. It will achieve this by offering a wide range of provision, including specialist careers guidance where necessary, tailored to meet the needs, aptitudes and interest of each young person who joins the initiative, and encouraging them to consider as wide a range of appropriate opportunities as possible.

  Bullying
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what data he has collated on the level of bullying in(a) state-financed and (b) privately funded educational institutions. [34186]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  This information is not collected centrally. However, research undertaken for the Department by Sheffield University between 1991 and 484
  1993 showed that 10 per cent. of primary and 4 per cent. of secondary age pupils in maintained schools were bullied at least once a week; and a further 27 per cent. of primary and 10 per cent. of secondary pupils were bullied at least sometimes.

  Tuition Fees
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what period of time he will use to assess the economic circumstances of parents' contribution to tuition fees for students in higher education. [34119]

  Dr. Howells
  Under the Mandatory Awards Regulations, Local Education Authorities calculate the parents' contribution on the basis of their gross income for income tax purposes in the financial year preceding the academic year for which the student's award is being calculated.

  EU Social and Education Council
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the informal EU Social and Education Council of Ministers meeting on 12 and 13 March. [33403]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Secretary of State chaired a successful joint meeting of EU Education and Social Affairs Ministers in London on 12–13 March on the theme of employability. The meeting was an innovative mix of audio-visual presentations, Ministerial discussion groups and plenary discussion. Ministers from all Member States attended the meeting and were joined by Commissioners Cresson and Flynn and representatives of the European Parliament and of social partner organisations from Europe and the UK.

  The Ministerial discussion focused on the future of the European Social Fund after the year 2000 and the new generation of education, training and youth programmes. A short report of the conclusions of the meeting will be prepared by the UK Presidency.

  The Ministerial discussion groups provided an interesting exchange of views and good practice, centred around approaches to employability across the EU in four main areas: the transition from school to work; lifelong learning; combating long-term unemployment and social exclusion; and combining labour market adaptability with fair and decent standards at work.

  Presentations were given by a range of people with differing perspectives on the theme: a leading business man on the role of the employer; the headteacher of a comprehensive school in south east London on preparing schoolchildren for the world of work and combating social exclusion; and participants on the New Deal and the Modern Apprenticeship Scheme and from the Prince's Trust. In addition to the business at the meeting, the Informal Council also successfully involved a range of young people, including young musicians and apprentice chefs.

  Physical Education (Teacher Training)
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what assessment he has made of the OFSTED audit of initial teacher training in physical education; [34202]
  485
  (2) what steps his Department has taken to assess the sports coaching skills of in-service teachers; [34203]

  (3) what steps he has taken since 1 May 1997 to encourage teachers to obtain recognised sports coaching qualifications; [34204]

  (4) what plans the Government have to introduce coaching weeks for teachers; [34205]

  (5) what is the sport content of the Initial Teacher Training requirement. [34222]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Government have not yet received OFSTED's report of its audit into the coverage of physical education in primary initial teacher training. However, it is for individual providers of initial teacher training to decide the extent to which physical education is covered in their courses. Our new requirements for initial teacher training, which I announced last June, will allow trainees to specialise across the 7 to 11 age range. From this September, for the first time primary teachers will be able to specialise in physical education as part of their course.

  The Government continue to attach importance to ensuring that good teaching raises pupils' standards in all subjects, including physical education. The Teacher Training Agency is supporting relevant developments in in-service training for classroom teachers and those with leadership responsibility for physical education in our schools. Officers from the Agency are advising the subject associations, the British Association of Advisers and Lecturers in Physical Education, and the Physical Education Association of the United Kingdom as they develop subject-specific exemplifications of the National Professional Standards.

  School Sports
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he has taken since 1 May 1997 to encourage the inclusion of information on sporting aims, provision and achievements in school annual reports and prospectuses. [34209]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The recent position is that all maintained schools must publish in their prospectus a statement of the governing body's aims in respect of sport at their school and the provision made for sport. Their annual report must indicate the extent to which these aims were met and give details of any notable sporting achievements. We shall, however, consult soon on the balance between requiring schools to include specific information in prospectuses and annual reports and leaving them greater discretion.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he has taken since 1 May 1997 to encourage schools' sports associations' involvement in competitions at district, regional and national levels. [34206]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Department recognises that schools' sports associations have a valuable role to play in extending sporting opportunities for young people and it is important for pupils' development that they have every opportunity to broaden their horizons through participation in sport and other activities. However, decisions about extra-curricular sporting activities are best left to schools themselves.
  486
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he has taken since 1 May 1997 to encourage competitive team sport in schools. [34208]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The National Curriculum for physical education already requires schools to teach competitive team games.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of schools have achieved the Sportsmark target for sport provision outside school hours. [34221]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Department does not collect this information. The Sportsmark scheme is operated by the English Sports Council.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if the amount of sport provided by schools inside and outside school hours has increased since 1 May 1997. [34229]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  This information is not collected by the Department.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidelines he has issued to local education authorities and school governors on pupils' access to (i) grassed playing fields and (ii) other sports facilities. [34201]

  Mr. Byers
  The Education (School Premises) Regulations 1996 prescribe minimum areas of playing fields to which pupils must have access. Access to other sports facilities is not prescribed but to help local education authorities and school governors in planning their sporting provision, guidance is contained in two Departmental Building Bulletins,Area Guidelines for Schools and School Grounds: A Guide to Good Practice.

  Physical Education
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he has taken to ensure that schools provide two hours or more per week of time-tabled National Curriculum physical education for their pupils. [34210]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  It is for schools to decide how much time to allocate to individual subjects.

  Sports Facilities
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he has taken to ensure that further education institutions publish details of the sports facilities and opportunities they offer. [34224]

  Dr. Howells
  The Charter for Further Education advises colleges to publish information about their sporting opportunities and facilities.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what action has been taken to encourage best practice in the provision of sports facilities in further education institutions following the Further Education Funding Council audit of existing sports provision. [34200]
  487
  Dr. Howells
  The Further Education Funding Council Inspectorate's Good Practice Report"Sport in Colleges", published in June 1996, was widely disseminated.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Defence Exports
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps she is taking to impose a more rigorous system of control over armaments exports from the United Kingdom; and if she will make a statement. [30423]

  Mrs. Roche
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary announced on 28 July 1997,Official Report, columns 26–29 the criteria to be used in considering individual applications for licences to export goods entered in Part III of Schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order (the so-called "Military List"), or dual-use goods where there are grounds for believing that the end-user will be the armed forces or the internal security forces of the recipient country.

  In addition, the Government's Strategic Export Controls Review is likely to include proposals to extend controls in certain areas. Options currently being considered include controls on the transfer of technology by intangible means and on the trafficking and brokering of certain goods. We expect these proposals to be set out, probably in the form of a White Paper, before the end of the year.

  Iraq
  Mr. Bruce George
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the export licences granted to Iraq by Britain since 2 August 1990, separately identifying those for the export of growth medium broken down by (i) size and (ii) value of shipment and by stated end use; what are the current rules controlling the export of growth medium to Iraq; and what changes have been made to them since 2 August 1990. [30919]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 23 February 1998]: The export to Iraq of any goods, unless under authority of an export licence, is prohibited by the Export of Goods (Control)(Iraq and Kuwait Sanctions) Order 1990 [SI 1990/1640], which came into force on 9 August 1990.

  The Export Control Organisation's computer databases have been interrogated and a total of 2,973 licences were issued for the export of goods to Iraq between 9 August 1990 and 31 January 1998. Full details of these licences could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Licences issued for the export of goods to Iraq between 9 August 1990 and 31 January 1998

  Year

  Number

  9 August 1990 to 31 December 1990

  5

  1991

  154

  1992

  418

  1993

  334

  1994

  635

  1995

  467

  1996

  349

  1997

  564

  1 January 1998 to 31 January 1998

  47

  488
  Between 1 January 1994 and 31 January 1998, 48 Open Individual Export Licences (OIELs) were issued authorising the export of protective clothing mainly for the protection of aid agency workers and journalists. This information should be considered in light of my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) of 30 October 1997, Official Report, columns 870–71. It would entail disproportionate costs to determine whether or not any such OIELs were issued between 9 August 1990 and 31 December 1993.

  In addition, there are five Open General Export Licences (OGELs) under which specified goods may be exported to Iraq subject to the conditions of the licence: OGEL (Ships' stores: Aircraft stores); OGEL (Personal effects); OGEL (Documents); OGEL (Specified medical goods to the Red Cross); OGEL (Human remains). Copies of all of these licences are in the Library of the House. Formulated complex growth medium is not covered by OGEL (Specified medical goods to the Red Cross).

  Of the licences issued between 9 August 1990 and 30 September 1996, 30 have been identified covering formulated complex growth media, and readily available details of these are as follows:

  Date of issue

  Quantity

  Approx. value of shipment/£

  Stated end-use

  31.05.91

  102kg

  4,000

  World Health

  Organisation (WHO)

  cholera control project

  31.10.91

  130kg

  4,600

  WHO cholera control

  project

  24.01.92

  1,095kg

  28,600

  Cholera control in

  hospital laboratories

  24.02.92

  25kg

  1,100

  UNICEF

  19.06.92

  6.2kg

  200

  Red Cross water and

  sanitation project

  30.06.92

  285kg

  12,100

  WHO

  31.07.92

  620.5kg

  20,000

  WHO

  30.09.92

  40kg

  1,300

  WHO

  28.06.93

  30.5kg

  1,100

  Veterinary work in

  hospital laboratories

  30.07.93

  20kg

  1,100

  UNICEF nutrition

  5 litres

  research project

  08.02.94

  51kg

  2,300

  UNICEF

  18.04.95

  181.5kg

  4,200

  Cholera control in

  hospital laboratories

  18.04.95

  181.5kg

  4,200

  Cholera control in

  hospital laboratories

  18.04.95

  181.5kg

  4,200

  Cholera control in

  hospital laboratories

  18.04.95

  181.5kg

  4,200

  Cholera control in

  hospital laboratories

  18.04.95

  181.5kg

  4,200

  Cholera control in

  hospital laboratories

  18.04.95

  181.5kg

  4,200

  Cholera control in

  hospital laboratories

  18.04.95

  181.5kg

  4,200

  Cholera control in

  hospital laboratories

  489

  Date of issue

  Quantity

  Approx. value of shipment/£

  Stated end-use

  18.04.95

  181.5kg

  4,200

  Cholera control in

  hospital laboratories

  18.04.95

  181.5kg

  4,200

  Cholera control in

  hospital laboratories

  18.04.95

  181.5kg

  4,200

  Cholera control in

  hospital laboratories

  18.04.95

  181.5kg

  4,200

  Cholera control in

  hospital laboratories

  18.04.95

  181.5kg

  4,200

  Cholera control in

  hospital laboratories

  18.04.95

  181.5kg

  4,200

  Cholera control in

  hospital laboratories

  18.04.95

  181.5kg

  4,200

  Cholera control in

  hospital laboratories

  18.04.95

  181.5kg

  4,200

  Cholera control in

  hospital laboratories

  18.04.95

  181.5kg

  4,200

  Cholera control in

  hospital laboratories

  18.04.95

  181.5kg

  4,200

  Cholera control in

  hospital laboratories

  04.12.95

  335kg

  7,800

  WHO

  10.01.96

  4kg

  600

  WHO

  2 litres

  However, as details of all of the goods covered by individual applications are not recorded on the relevant database, it is possible that other licences covering formulated complex growth media might have been issued during this period. Any such other licences could be identified only by examination of the paper records of all licences issued since 9 August 1990, which would entail disproportionate cost.

  Since 1 October 1996, the UK has issued nine licences covering the export of formulated complex growth media to Iraq, which is covered by the Import and Export (IMPEX) Mechanism established under UN Security Council resolution 1051, which came into force in October 1996. In each case, in accordance with our obligations under UN Security Council resolution 661, the Government confirmed that the applications were to export supplies strictly for medical purposes. The UN Sanctions Committee was notified, as was the UNSCOM-IAEA Joint Unit. The IMPEX Mechanism covers specified goods with the potential for use in the development and production of weapons of mass destruction and provides for monitoring of their use in Iraq by the UN Special Commission (UNSCOM).

  For six of the nine licences referred to in the paragraph above the consignees were UN agencies. For the three other licences, the exports were specifically authorised by the UN Sanctions Committee under the "Oil for Food" programme based on UN Security Council resolution 986 and successor resolutions. The date of each licence, the quantity of formulated complex growth medium covered and the stated end-use are in the table.
  490

  Licences issued since 1 October 1996 for the export of formulated complex growth media to Iraq.

  Date of issue

  Quantity

  Approx. value of shipment

  Stated end-use

  12.02.97

  5 litres

  £500

  World Health

  Organisation (WHO)

  poliomyelitis diagnosis

  project

  07.05.97

  10kg

  £1,000

  WHO tuberculosis

  0.5 litre

  control project

  21.05.97

  10kg

  £750

  WHO nutrition research

  project

  21.07.971

  1,670.7kg

  £54,000

  Hospital laboratories

  under the UN

  "Oil for Food"

  Programme

  09.10.97

  27kg

  £1,000

  UNICEF urban and

  semi-urban water project

  14.10.97

  14 litres

  $500

  Hospital laboratories

  under the UN

  "Oil for Food"

  Programme

  11.11.97

  3 litres

  $50

  International Atomic

  Energy Agency rinderpest

  surveillance project

  28.01.98

  40kg

  £1,000

  WHO primary healthcare

  project

  30.01.98

  40kg

  $4,000

  Hospital laboratories

  under the UN

  "Oil for Food"

  Programme

  1This licence expired before the goods concerned were exported, and a new licence with the same coverage and for the same end-use was issued on 19.12.97.

  Retail Petrol Industry
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many retail petrol stations closed in(a) 1996 and (b) 1997 in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; and what data she has collated about forecast closures in 1998. [31699]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 2 March 1998]The figures are as follows:

  Year

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Northern Ireland

  1996

  1,222

  151

  60

  87

  1997

  434

  105

  88

  128

  It is too soon to say what closures there may be in 1998.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many retail petrol stations there were in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in (i) 1990, (ii) 1995 and (iii) 1996. [31698]
  491
  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 2 March 1998]The data are not available for 1990. The figures for 1995 and 1996 are as follows:

  Year

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Northern Ireland

  1995

  12,772

  1,544

  891

  769

  1996

  11,550

  1,393

  921

  682

  Car Parking
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has(a) to reduce the number of car parking spaces available for use by staff and (b) to introduce charges for staff using workplace car parking spaces. [32466]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 3 March 1998]In line with the Guide to Green Transport Plans circulated last September by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my Department is actively considering this issue in preparing Green Transport Plans for its key buildings.

  Self-employment
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to tighten the definition of self-employed to avoid workers being unfairly described as working for themselves. [32123]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  [holding answer 4 March 1998]: My Department has been reviewing its policy on employment status issues as they affect the coverage of the employment rights legislation and I will be giving this matter further consideration.

  Public Appointments
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many of the appointments to public bodies which she has made since 1 May 1997 have been from the Public Appointments Unit list. [33251]

  Mrs. Beckett
  My Department consults a wide range of sources in considering candidates for appointments to public bodies, including the PAU Database. Of the appointments made since 1 May 1997, 11 were identified from the PAU list.

  Oil and Gas Industry
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has for statutory regulation of the offshore oil and gas industry's discharges. [32650]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 5 March 1998]: Operational discharges of oil are currently regulated under the Prevention of Oil Pollution Act 1971.

  The United Kingdom has agreed to implement, in conjunction with other contracting parties to the Oslo and Paris Conventions, a harmonised Mandatory Control System for the use and reduction of the discharge of offshore chemicals. The system is currently in a trial period and will be reviewed and, if necessary, revised in 1999.
  492
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the current voluntary Offsore Chemicals Notification Scheme. [32389]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 5 March 1998]: The current voluntary Offshore Chemical Notification Scheme has been very successful. Over 2,600 products are categorised and listed. The rating system used in the scheme is easily understood and has promoted the use of lower hazard chemicals by the offshore industry.

  Utilities
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if she will make a statement on the implications for Norweb customers of the Utility Regulator's review; [33969]

  (2) if she will make a statement on the new powers that will be given to regulators as a result of the Utility Regulator's Review; [33971]

  (3) if she will make a statement on whether the Utility Regulator's Review will benefit electricity consumers who experience power failure for prolonged periods of time. [33970]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The review of utility regulation has not yet been completed. Until that time, it would be wrong of me to speculate on issues which fall under its remit. I would, however, encourage my hon. Friend to participate fully in the consultation process which will follow publication of the review's findings.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will introduce legislation to regulate redundancy payments in the utilities. [33967]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The utilities are subject to the provisions of the Employment Rights Act 1996 with regard to redundancy payments. I laid an Order on 18 February to increase the weekly earnings limit. I have no other plans to amend this legislation.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the powers of the utility regulators to intervene in the closure of maintenance facilities. [33966]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The electricity and gas regulators have duties to exercise their statutory functions in a manner best calculated to protect the interests of consumers in respect of continuity of supply. Where appropriate, electricity and gas licences contain conditions relating to continuity of supply. If the regulators consider that these conditions are not being satisfied, they have the necessary powers to enforce them.

  Electricity Interconnector
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she will announce her decision on the public inquiry into the electricity interconnector from Scotland to England. [33643]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 10 March 1998]: There is no outstanding public inquiry on the Anglo-Scottish interconnector. The only overhead line public inquiry reports that my Department is currently considering are the 1992 and 1995 public inquiries into reinforcement of

  493
  the English transmission system in Cleveland and North Yorkshire and a 1997 public inquiry into an overhead line at Mardy, Abergavenny. The situation on the 1992 and 1995 public inquiries is as recorded in my right hon. Friend's reply to the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) on 16 February 1998, Official Report, column 510.

  Adlington Employment Scheme
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if a Minister from her Department will visit the Adlington employment scheme in Lancashire. [34116]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I have no immediate plans to visit the North West. I was, however, pleased to hear that the Adlington Employment Centre has been offered £1 million grant from the European Programme.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will estimate the impact of a 30 million tonnes a year coal industry on(a) sulphur and (b) carbon dioxide reduction targets. [34091]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 12 March 1998]: The future role for coal in electricity generation is being studied in the review of Energy Sources for Power Generation. Environmental impacts are among the factors being taken into consideration.

  Gas-fired Power Stations
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment his Department has made of the advantages of gas-fired power stations; and if she will make a statement. [34351]

  Mr. Battle
  This is a matter which is being considered in my Department's Review of Energy Sources for Power Generation.

  Tobacco
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when representatives from the Police, HM Customs & Excise and the National Weights and Measures Laboratory and Ministers from her Department last met to discuss the issue of tobacco imported from Belgium and illegally resold in the United Kingdom. [34703]

  Mrs. Beckett
  There have been no such meetings.

  These are policy matters on which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor leads.

  Bus Companies
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she expects to announce her decision about the Office of Fair Trading report on Strathclyde Buses and Midland Bluebird. [34590]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) on 2 March 1998,Official Report, column 460.

  Trade Union Recognition
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment she has made of the advantages and disadvantages of excluding firms with under 50 workers from union recognition legislation. [34297]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Government have received many representations about trade union recognition, including arguments for and against excluding small firms from the procedure. We are currently considering the options and will set out a balanced package of proposals for consultation in a White Paper in the first part of this year.

  Small Firms
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what response her Department has made to the Bank of England's January 1998 report on finance for small firms. [33405]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Department has welcomed the Bank of England's fifth annual report on Finance for Small Firms. As with previous reports, it is a valuable contribution to knowledge of small business finance.

  The Department will continue to work with the Bank of England and others to ensure that small firms have access to appropriate funding for their needs.

  Electricity Companies
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the Electricity Regulator has the power to specify that electricity companies should consult with other organisations regarding their joint response to an emergency or a potential emergency; and if she will make a statement. [34177]

  Mr. Battle
  The Electricity Regulator has no such power but has a duty to exercise his functions in a way which protects the interests of consumers in respect of the continuity of supply. The electricity companies do consult the emergency services and other relevant organisations, such as the media and telephone companies, regarding their joint response in an emergency.

  Gas Companies
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the Office of Gas Supply Regulation has the power to specify that gas supply companies should consult with other organisations regarding their joint response to an emergency or a potential emergency; and if she will make a statement. [34175]

  Mr. Battle
  Matters of safety regulation are for the Health and Safety Executive rather than Ofgas. HSE's Gas Safety (Management) Regulations require gas supply companies to co-operate with the Network Emergency Co-ordinator (Transco) and any person conveying gas in the Network such as public gas transporters to ensure the
  495
  safety of the Network. Ofgas has no specific power to specify that gas supply companies should consult with other organisations regarding their joint response to an emergency, but the Director General of Gas Supply has a duty to consider safety in exercising her statutory functions.

  Art Market
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations she has received concerning the impact of EU regulations on the London art market; and if she will make a statement. [32916]
  496
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  I have received representations from the British Art Market Federation and from members of the art trade, and am aware of concerns about the effects of EU legislation on the London art market, in particular the Commission's proposal for an artist's re-sale rights directive, and the operation of import VAT.

  The art trade makes a significant contribution to the United Kingdom economy. It is a highly successful industry. The Government are determined to see that its achievements are not undermined. Ministers have met art trade representatives on several occasions. We understand their concerns, and maintain a regular dialogue with them.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  EU Better Government Conference
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster who took the decision to hold the EU Conference on Better Government in Manchester; when the decision was taken; and for what reason Manchester was chosen in preference to Newcastle upon Tyne. [34688]

  Dr. David Clark
  On assuming office in May 1997, proposals were made to me for the UK Presidency Conference which was sponsored by my Department and took place on 8–10 March.

  The conference venue had not been determined at that stage. Various possible venues were contemplated and I added Newcastle upon Tyne to that list. The list was narrowed down to Manchester and Newcastle upon Tyne, and the former selected on 12 August 1997.

  Permanent Civil Servants at 1 April 1997 (full-time equivalents)

  (i) Scotland

  (ii) London

  (iii) South-east

  All locations

  Responsibility level

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Non-Industrial staff

  SCS level

  250

  7

  1,880

  51

  130

  4

  3,700

  Level 6

  550

  11

  1,420

  30

  420

  9

  4,800

  Level 7

  810

  5

  5,430

  36

  1,470

  10

  14,940

  SEO level

  1,420

  6

  6,030

  27

  2,900

  13

  22,660

  HEO level

  3,770

  8

  10,730

  22

  6,450

  14

  47,750

  EO level

  11,200

  10

  20,010

  19

  14,230

  13

  107,830

  AO level

  15,630

  9

  28,390

  17

  20,410

  12

  167,080

  AA level

  8,410

  12

  11,040

  16

  7,950

  11

  70,540

  All non-industrial staff

  42,040

  10

  84,930

  19

  53,960

  12

  439,310

  Industrial staff

  3,750

  10

  1,710

  5

  8,200

  23

  36,030

  All staff

  45,790

  10

  86,640

  18

  62,160

  13

  475,340

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefit Integrity Project
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) for what reasons records on the regional effects of the Benefit Integrity Project are not maintained; and if she will ensure that such effects are measured before proceeding to any changes in benefits covered by the Project; [24353]

  (2) pursuant to her answer of 13 January 1998, Official Report, column 251, for what reasons regional figures about the effects of the Benefit Integrity Project are not available; and on what geographical basis they are available. [24729]

  Mr. Denham
  The Benefit Integrity Project aims to ensure that those in receipt of DLA are entitled to it. While it is right to check that people are receiving the correct amount of benefit, we are determined that those checks should be undertaken as sensitively as possible. Also, that we should ensure all decisions taken as a result of the project are right. We have, therefore, acted to introduce an extra safeguard to improve the quality of, and confidence in, benefit decisions made by the Project.
  498
  The two main reasons for this were that the only hotel capable of accommodating a conference of over 300 ministers and top civil servants from throughout the EU, the Gosforth Park, was unavailable on the required dates, and that Newcastle airport had practically no incoming international flights at the weekend.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the number and percentage of civil servants employed at each grade in (i) Scotland, (ii) London and (iii) the South East of England. [34225]

  Dr. David Clark
  Because there are many different systems in the civil service since the delegation of pay and grading, estimates are provided in the table on the basis of responsibility levels corresponding to the former service-wide grades.

  The administration of this programme is a matter for Peter Mathison, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with further details.

  Letter from David Riggs to Mr. Jim Cousins, dated 13 March 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked Peter Mathison to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions asking for the reasons records on the regional effects of the Benefits Integrity Project (BIP) are not maintained/available. As Mr. Mathison is away from the office on leave, I am replying.
  Disability Living Allowance is a national benefit awarded as a result of mobility and care needs arising from disability. The BIP has been introduced to ensure that the correct benefit is in payment on the basis of an up to date statement of those mobility and/or care needs. It is not expected therefore, that there would be significant variations based on geographical location.
  The database of casework has not been designed to extract information geographically during the project. To do so would necessitate high cost and disruption to the processing of ongoing casework. However, once the casework has been completed a full evaluation of the data is planned to provide a geographical analysis.
  A brief monthly statistical report is produced and a copy of the report for December 1997 and subsequent months can be found in the House of Commons Library.
  I hope you find the reply helpful.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many individuals have been subject to
  499
  (a) a reduction and (b) an increase in benefit as a result of investigation due to the Benefit Integrity Project; [26949]

  (2) how many individual reviews have been carried out to date under the Benefit Integrity Project; [26950]

  (3) how many of the reviews carried out to date as part of the Benefit Integrity Project have (a) identified errors and (b) identified cases of fraud. [26948]

  Mr. Denham
  The Benefit Integrity Project aims to ensure that those in receipt of DLA are entitled to it. While it is right to check that people are receiving the correct amount of benefit, we are determined that those checks should be undertaken as sensitively as possible. Also, that we should ensure all decisions taken as a result of the project are right. We have, therefore, acted to introduce an extra safeguard to improve the quality of, and confidence in, benefit decisions made by the Project.

  The administration of this programme is a matter for Peter Mathison, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with further details.

  Letter from David Riggs to Mr. Mark Oaten, dated 13 March 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked Peter Mathison to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions regarding the Benefit Integrity Project (BIP). As Mr. Mathison is away from the office on leave, I am replying.
  The statistical information is given as at 31 January 1998.
  The number of awards reduced as part of the BIP is 6,884, the number disallowed is 3,926 and the number increased is 1,299.
  The BIP has examined 54,839 cases of which 7,276 have been reviewed. A further 10,811 cases due for renewal have been dealt with under normal Disability Living Allowance (DLA) renewal action by the BIP team. These are cases that meet the criteria for BIP action.
  Information on the number of identified errors is not available in the format requested. A total of 12,109 cases, including renewal cases, have had their award changed as a result of the BIP.
  The BIP aims to ensure that those people in receipt of Disability Living Allowance are entitled to it and are receiving the correct amount. While the Project has, broadly, sustained the estimated level of incorrectness, it has not sustained the level of fraud estimated by the Benefit Review.
  The BIP has identified 157 cases in which fraud was suspected, of which 49 have been referred to the Benefit Fraud Investigation Service for further investigation, which have not yet been completed. In the remaining 108 cases, fraud staff in the Disability Benefits Directorate decided that there was no realistic prospect of determining whether fraud had occurred and the files were closed without further action.
  From 9 February, no case likely to result in the reduction or removal of benefit will be passed to an Adjudication Officer (AO) for review without further evidence in addition to that supplied by the customer on the BIP questionnaire. This extra safeguard is to improve confidence in the decisions made by the BIP and to help safeguard the position of severely disabled people.
  I hope you find the reply helpful.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many fraudulent disability living allowance claims have been uncovered by the Benefit Integrity Project to date. [27664]

  Mr. Denham
  The Benefit Integrity project aims to ensure that those in receipt of DLA are entitled to it.500
  While it is right to check that people are receiving the correct amount of benefit, we are determined that those checks should be undertaken as sensitively as possible. Also, that we should ensure all decisions taken as a result of the project are right. We have, therefore, acted to introduce an extra safeguard to improve the quality of, and confidence in, benefit decisions made by the Project.

  The administration of this programme is a matter for Peter Mathison, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will wright to my hon. Friend with further details.

  Letter from David Riggs to Ms Joan Walley, dated 13 March 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked Peter Mathison to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many fraudulent Disability Living Allowance claims have been uncovered by the Benefits Integrity Project (BIP) to date. As Mr. Mathison is away from the office on leave, I am replying.
  The BIP aims to ensure that those people in receipt of Disability Living Allowance are entitled to it and are receiving the correct amount. While the Project has, broadly, sustained the estimated level of incorrectness, it has not sustained the level of fraud estimated by the Benefit Review.
  As at 31 January 1998, the BIP had identified 157 cases in which fraud was suspected, of which 49 have been referred to the Benefit Fraud Investigation Service for further investigation. These investigations are still ongoing. In the remaining 108 cases, fraud staff in the Disability Benefits Directorate decided that there was no realistic prospect of determining whether fraud had occurred and the files were closed without further action.
  I hope you find the reply helpful.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assumptions her Department has made concerning the level of disability living allowance fraud in devising the Benefit Integrity Project(a) in cash terms and (b) in terms of the number of claimants committing fraud. [30223]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 18 February 1998]: The Benefit Integrity Project is designed to help ensure the correctness of payments of Disability Living Allowance (DLA) to people receiving the higher rate of the (DLA) mobility component along with either the middle or highest rate of the DLA care component, by collecting up-to-date information about their care and mobility needs through a programme of visits and postal inquiries. It is not a fraud drive. The focus of the activity was dictated by the findings of the DLA Benefit Review. There is no suggestion that people contacted as part of the Project are thought to be claiming DLA fraudulently.

  The Benefit Review was initiated by the last Government as a research mechanism to measure the extent of error, including fraud, across all major benefits. The DLA Benefit Review was undertaken in 1996 and published in February 1997; it represents a snap-shot of the benefit at a point in time. Findings are based on a statistically valid sample of cases selected at random.

  The DLA Benefit Review, in common with Reviews that preceded it, presented an analysis of what was going on in the benefit by categorising each sample case. Based on that methodology, the DLA Benefit Review reported that nearly

  501
  73 per cent. of people receiving DLA were receiving it at the correct rate at the time they were visited. Therefore, some 27 per cent. of people receiving DLA were doing so at an incorrect rate. Reasons for incorrectness ranged from Departmental error (1.1 per cent. of cases) or customer error (9.6 per cent. of cases) through to confirmed fraud (1.5 per cent. of cases) and involved under as well as over payments.

  The DLA Benefit Review reported a headline figure for fraud in DLA of 12.2 per cent.: the sum of cases categorised as strong suspicion of fraud (10.7 per cent. of cases) and those categorised as confirmed fraud. These sample findings were extrapolated to provide an estimated annual expenditure loss from overpayments due to fraud of around £499 million.

  This Government are not convinced that the analysis of the Benefit Review results enables us properly to identify the reason behind wrongly made benefit payments; these can often be a mixture of misunderstanding and weakness in the benefit design. while the Benefit Integrity Project has, broadly, sustained the estimated level of incorrectness, it has not sustained the level of fraud estimated by the Benefit Review. In view of this, officials have been asked to undertake further work on the methodology and analysis of all current Reviews.

  Child Support Agency
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what measures she is taking to ensure that the Child Support Agency provides an effective system to deal with complaints and queries in the Teesside area; [29946]

  (2) if he will increase the number of staff employed by the Child Support Agency in the Teesside area. [29933]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  We expect the Child Support Agency to provide a consistent, fair and efficient service to all its clients. The Agency is committed to reducing the number of complaints about its handling of cases and improvements in customer service are a high priority.

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

  Letter from Faith Boardman to Dr. Ashok Kumar, dated 13 March 1998:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security about Child Support Agency staffing levels and complaints and queries in the Teesside area.
  We recently reviewed the organisation of our operations to examine how we could improve the cost effectiveness and efficiency of the Agency. We have concluded that while we need to maintain a geographical presence to provide a direct interface with our public and to present appeals and court cases, the processing desk work which does not involve face to face contact with customers can be done much more efficiently and cost effectively in our large centres, thus releasing resources to deal with backlogs and rising workloads.
  There are broad proposals only at this stage—a lot of the detail has yet to be fixed—but the main thrust of the strategy is to focus all available resources on improved service delivery. Although we are still engaged in a detailed analysis, it is clear that the size of the field network will reduce significantly over the next three to four years as we transfer the processing work to the centres. The
  502
  remaining field resources will then be focused specifically on improved face to face contact with customers, often in conjunction with other Agencies. We expect the availability and amount of local face to face contact to increase as a result. This is originally the area on which field staff were intended to concentrate at the start of the Agency; processing work was undertaken as a short-term measure to help the Agency deal with the number of applications it received in the first two years. Currently, there are no plans to increase staff in Teesside.
  The Agency recognises the need to deal effectively with complaints and queries from all parts of Great Britain. The Teesside area is dealt with by the Scotland and North East Business Unit. In November 1997, the Agency introduced into its 6 Business Units, new procedures, guidance, training and new IT system for dealing with complaints. The Agency has also identified the main reasons for complaint and is taking action to improve these areas.
  Also the Agency's Business Units adopt a case study approach with cases referred to the Independent Case Examiner whereby the Business Unit Manager and staff involved with the case identify lessons learnt, introduce improvements and good working practices and regularly liaise with the office of the Independent Case Examiner.
  In line with the Citizen's Charter Unit standards, the Agency aims to acknowledge all complaints within 2 working days of receipt and to issue a full reply within 10 working days of receipt. The Agency is achieving these standards in 84 per cent. of acknowledgments and 55 per cent. of replies. The Agency is currently in the process of producing quality standards that will be applied to all correspondence by Summer 1998.
  In order to improve the telephone enquiry service, the Agency has increased the staffing levels and extended opening hours of its National Enquiry Line and the Client Help Lines in each of its Business Units to 8.30–6.00 p.m. The help lines deal with over 90 per cent. of calls and the balance are referred to the appropriate business sections for more specialist advice and information.
  Staff on business sections are also being actively encouraged to deal with customers by telephone in order to deal with more customer business more quickly and effectively and to prevent avoidable enquiries and complaints. By the introduction of more flexible working patterns, the Agency aims to offer its customers a 7 day, 7.00 a.m.–10.00 p.m. service within the next 4 years.
  Queries and complaints can also be dealt with by personal interview service at our local Field offices. In practice, very few customers use this service. The average number of interviews held per member of field staff in the whole of 1996/7 was approximately 36. By moving processing work to our centres, staff will be able to increase this average and extend our face to face contact with customers.
  I am very conscious that there are still far too many justified complaints about the standards of basic customer contact and the service we provide, and we recognise that doing things right first time is the key to preventing complaints. We are aware that as we further tackle our backlog of cases from the Agency's first two years, there is potential for the volume of complaints to rise in the short term.
  In the coming years, I am committed to responding to the needs of our customers by bringing high quality levels of performance to every part of our operation as a matter of routine, thereby reducing the number of complaints received and enhancing the public perception of the Agency.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Nursery Places (Keighley)
  Mrs. Ann Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment she has made of the likely impact on nursery place availability and funding in the Keighley constituency of her Department's measures to get lone parents on benefit into work. [32586]
  503
  Mr. Keith Bradley
  [holding answer 4 March 1998]: The Government are committed to the delivery of a National Childcare Strategy that will provide a range of good quality, affordable and accessible childcare in every neighbourhood, meeting the needs of children and offering choice to parents. This will include help to lone parents who choose to take up work. To meet that commitment, we are investing £300 million over the next five years to expand out of school provision, providing additional places for up to 1 million children. In addition, to ensure that work pays for families with children, we propose a working families tax credit, backed up by affordable childcare.

  The Government will be working closely with local government and childcare providers in the voluntary, public and private sectors in order to build effective partnerships across the country and to ensure that local provision is matched to local need.

  We do not have details of the extent to which existing provision for childcare will meet the additional demand created by the New Deal for Lone Parents in individual areas.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many of the people whose entitlement to disability living allowance has been adjusted in the last year have had their entitlement adjusted(a) upwards and (b) downwards. [33387]

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

  Letter from David Riggs to Mr. Peter Viggers, dated 13 March 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked Peter Mathison to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question concerning how many of the people whose entitlement to Disability Living Allowance (DLA) has been adjusted in the last year have had their entitlement adjusted (a) upwards and (b) downwards. As Mr. Mathison is away from the office on leave, I am replying.
  As at 30 November 1997, 196,000 DLA claims had been adjusted upwards and 28,000 DLA claims had been adjusted downwards.
  I hope you find the reply helpful.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will list, by London borough, her estimate of the number of recipients of council tax benefit who live in property valued above band E; and what is the average extra payment required from them due to the limiting of council tax benefit. [34306]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The information is not available in the format requested due to sample size constraints.

  The estimated total number of Council Tax Benefit recipients above band E in Greater London is 25,000. The estimated average extra payment required due to limiting Council Tax Benefit for this group is £3.80 a week.

  Pensioners (Income Support)
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how the number of pensioners entitled to income support but not claiming income support has been measured. [34708]

  Mr. Denham
  The estimate is based on an analysis of the Family Resources Survey (FRS), an annual survey of approximately 26,000 households (in 1995–96) in Great Britain.

  The FRS asks detailed questions about people's incomes and living circumstances. The information collected makes it possible to estimate people's entitlement to Income Support by simulating the benefit assessment. This indicates which people appear to be entitled to Income Support and, since the FRS shows who is actually receiving the benefit, it is possible to estimate the numbers who are apparently entitled to, but not receiving it.

  The FRS is a sample survey, so it is necessary to re-weight the results to get an estimate which is representative of the population as a whole. More information on the methods used to estimate income related benefit take-up can be found in "Income Related Benefits Estimates of Take-up in 1995–96", a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will provide a breakdown of the £15 million pilot scheme for encouraging pensioner take-up of income support by area; and if each area will be applying the same pilot methodology. [34692]

  Mr. Denham
  The £15 million allocated to these projects includes expenditure on the programme, administration and evaluation. The programme and evaluation expenditure will be controlled centrally, while the allocation of the administrative budget has not yet been finalised. The pilots will have two main objectives: they will test the best ways of finding potential Income Support claimants by matching records held centrally and locally. They will then test the best ways of reaching potential claimants by visiting them at home, ringing them or writing to them. A variety of methodologies will be used in each of the pilot areas.

  Pensioners (Home-ownership)
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of pensioners are home-owners. [34709]

  Mr. Denham
  60 per cent. of pensioners own or are buying the property in which they live.
  Notes:

  1. An individual is defined to be a home-owner when he or she lives in a property which is either owned outright or being purchased, and has their name on the relevant deeds.

  2. Figures are based on information from the 1995–96 Family Resources Survey. The 1995–96 survey is the latest for which data are available.

  3. The estimates are based on sample counts which have been adjusted for non-response using multi-purpose grossing factors which control for region, Council Tax Band and a number of demographic variables. Estimates are subject to sampling error and to variability in non-response.

  Occupational Pensions
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the average lump sum payment received by pensioners with(a) occupational pensions and (b) personal pensions retiring in 1995. [34706]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is not available.

  Motability
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make it her policy to ensure that bridging funding is made available to disabled people who have(a) sought a review of a BIP adjudication and (b) appealed against the Adjudication Officer's decision to ensure that they do not lose their Motability vehicle pending the outcome of the review or appeal, respectively. [34486]

  Mr. Denham
  The Benefit Integrity Project aims to ensure that those in receipt of DLA are entitled to it. While it is right to check that people are receiving the correct amount of benefit, we are determined that those checks should be undertaken as sensitively as possible. Also, that we should ensure all decisions taken as a result of the project are right. We have, therefore, acted to introduce an extra safeguard to improve the quality of, and confidence in, benefit decisions made by the Project.

  Eligibility for the Motability Scheme is dependent on a claimant being entitled to the higher rate of the mobility component of Disability Living Allowance (DLA) for a period of three years or more.

  Officials are currently liaising with Motability to see what can be done to protect Motability customers who are dissatisfied with a decision made, as part of the Benefit Integrity Project, to reduce or remove their entitlement to the mobility component of DLA. There is no provision in legislation for bridging funding to be made available in these or any other circumstances. If an adjudication officer decides, whether as a result of the information gathered as part of the Benefit Integrity Project or not, that a person is no longer entitled to the higher rate of the DLA mobility component, there is no legal basis for leaving benefit payments unchanged.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate her Department has made of the number of DLA claimants who will lose their Motability vehicle as a result of decisions taken as part of the Benefit Integrity Project. [34488]

  Mr. Denham
  The Benefit Integrity Project aims to ensure that those in receipt of DLA are entitled to it. While it is right to check that people are receiving the correct amount of benefit, we are determined that those checks should be undertaken as sensitively as possible. Also, that we should ensure all decisions taken as a result of the project are right. We have, therefore, acted to introduce an extra safeguard to improve the quality of, and confidence in, benefit decisions made by the Project.

  Eligibility for the Motability Scheme is dependent on a claimant being entitled to the higher rate of the mobility component of Disability Living Allowance (DLA) for a period of three years or more.
  506
  Up to the end of February 1998, nearly 1,100 people with Motability agreements, involved in the Benefit Integrity Project, have had their award of the higher rate mobility component reduced or removed. It is not possible to gauge how many individuals will lose their Motability vehicle as a result of this exercise. Claimants have the right to a review of, and appeal against, an Adjudication Officer's decision to disallow or reduce either or both components of DLA, and assumptions cannot be made as to outcomes. Officials are currently liaising with Motability to see what can be done to protect Motability customers who are dissatisfied with a decision made, as part of the Benefit Integrity Project, to reduce or remove their entitlement to the higher rate mobility component of Disability Living Allowance (DLA).

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many DLA claimants who have been subject to BIP to date have had their Motability vehicle repossessed. [34487]

  Mr. Denham
  Motability is an independent charity and, as such, it is not informed of the reasons why an individual has had their benefit entitlement changed. Motability does, however, record reasons for early terminations of lease hire agreements. The Director of Motability has advised me that, on average, 1,300 people a month seek early termination. This is broken down as follows:

  80 per cent. due to death/increasing disability/lack of driver;

  15 per cent. due to a different car being required due to worsening disability or a change in the family situation;

  5 per cent. due to a reduction in mobility allowance or other financial reason.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Immigration Control
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the role of the embarkation control in the immigration control process. [35037]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We have undertaken a detailed study of the residual embarkation control over persons leaving the United Kingdom. I have concluded, in the light of this, that the present arrangements are an inefficient use of resources and that they contribute little to the integrity of the immigration control. They will be replaced by a targeted, intelligence-led approach creating a more efficient and effective control.

  The revised and improved arrangements will be brought into operation as soon as practicable. We will employ appropriate technology and will build upon the existing co-operation between the border agencies, port operators and carriers.

  We conducted this study against the background of the decision, in 1994, by the previous administration to scrap the embarkation checks for passengers travelling from ferry ports and small ports to destinations within the European Union; so, for four years, 40 per cent. of departing passengers have not been seen by an immigration officer.
  507
  In common with most comparable countries, the United Kingdom has never had a comprehensive check-out system because experience has shown that the use of intelligence and denunciatory information is the most effective tool against illegal immigration. This approach will continue and will be developed.

  Although it does not contribute to the overall effectiveness of the immigration control, the residual embarkation control is resource intensive. In 1997, 7 per cent. of the Immigration Service's operational duties were deployed on the embarkation control, compared with 11 per cent. on asylum-related work. Estimated staffing costs were over £3 million.

  We inherited an embarkation control which serves little purpose in the tracking down of immigration offenders. Enhanced technology, such as closed circuit television, combined with close liaison between the border agencies, port operators and airlines, will create a stronger deterrent than the current immigration departure checks. We will also ensure that systems will be in place to mount comprehensive embarkation checks when required in the interests of national security. We are committed to the continued operation of the All Ports Warning System for child abduction cases.

  Finally, by better use of technology and liaison, we will release Immigration Service resources to be re-deployed on more effective elements of the control. We will keep the revised arrangements under review.

  European Elections
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) on what date he required NOP's research on Attitudes to Euro Elections and Electoral Reform to be completed; [34142]

  (2) what was the cost of the NOP research on Attitudes to Euro Elections and Electoral Reform; [34144]

  (3) if he approved the methodology employed by NOP in their research on Attitudes to Euro Elections and Electoral Reform; [34146]

  (4) how many members of the public were involved in (a) focus group discussions and (b) in other ways in the NOP research on Attitudes to Euro Elections and Electoral Reform; [34145]

  (5) on what date he commissioned NOP to carry out the research entitled Attitudes to Euro Elections and Electoral Reform. [34143]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The decision to commission a study into voters' attitudes was taken in December 1997. A number of potential individuals and organisations who might have been interested in carrying out the task were contacted. National Opinion Poll (NOP) were formally commissioned to undertake the study on 13 February. They were asked to report by 27 February.

  Their methodology was approved by Home Office officials acting on behalf of my right hon. Friend.

  NOP' s study involved six groups, each of between six and eight people. A total of 40 members of the public were involved.

  The cost of the study was £9,800 plus Value Added Tax.
  508
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what factors underlay his decision to select the Belgium electoral system for examination rather than the Danish electoral system. [34141]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Representations were made to my right hon. Friend by Charter 88 and the Liberal Democrats inviting him to consider the Belgian electoral system.

  The Danish electoral system is considerably more complicated than the Belgian one, involving a two-tier seat allocation process and the use of three different divisors.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received since 25 November 1997 in favour of(a) an open list system and (b) a closed list system for electing MEPS. [34140]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Since 25 November 1997, the Home Office has received several hundred letters covering all aspects of electoral reform. It would not be possible, except at disproportionate cost, to identify separately those which expressed a view specifically on open and closed list systems for electing Members of the European Parliament.

  Schengen Agreement
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 18 June 1997,Official Report, column 179, if he will place the documents which his Department has examined relating to the Schengen Agreement in the Library. [33926]

  Ms Quin
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to him on 2 March 1998,Official Report, column 446, to the effect that we have received and examined the 1985 Schengen Agreement, the 1990 Schengen Convention and the Accession Protocols. These documents are already in the Library.

  Closed Circuit Television
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what funding has been provided from his Department to London local authorities for the development and installation of CCTV facilities in their boroughs in each of the last three years. [34741]

  Mr. Michael
  The number of closed circuit television (CCTV) schemes in London boroughs which were successful in the CCTV Challenge competitions run in 1996–97 and 1997–98 and the total amount awarded is shown in the tables.

  CCTV challenge competition round 2:1996/97

  Borough

  Number of winning bids

  Total amount awarded

  Brent

  1

  250,000

  Camden

  1

  71,000

  Croydon

  4

  296,500

  Ealing

  2

  253,600

  Hackney

  2

  236,005

  Hammersmith & Fulham

  1

  106,200

  Haringey

  1

  130,300

  Harrow

  2

  156,880

  Hillingdon

  1

  12,703

  Hounslow

  10

  485,299

  509

  CCTV challenge competition round 2:1996/97

  Borough

  Number of winning bids

  Total amount awarded

  Islington

  1

  71,000

  Kensington & Chelsea

  1

  84,306

  Kingston Upon Thames

  1

  154,500

  Lewisham

  1

  250,000

  Merton

  2

  177,500

  Newham

  6

  553,800

  Redbridge

  1

  200,000

  Richmond Upon Thames

  1

  13,305

  Southwark

  1

  145,000

  Sutton

  1

  63,000

  Wandsworth

  1

  66,500

  Westminster

  2

  133,600

  Total

  44

  3,910,998

  CCTV challenge competition round 3:1997/98

  Borough

  Number of winning bids

  Total awarded

  Barking & Dagenham

  5

  519,968

  Bexley

  1

  61,088

  Brent

  1

  135,000

  Camden

  1

  74,250

  Ealing

  1

  109,868

  Greenwich

  2

  202,500

  Hackney

  3

  324,000

  Hammersmith & Fulham

  2

  170,469

  Harrow

  1

  35,000

  Hounslow

  1

  135,000

  Kingston Upon Thames

  1

  135,000

  Lambeth

  1

  103,500

  Merton

  2

  146,633

  Newham

  2

  185,000

  Southwark

  3

  238,725

  Tower Hamlets

  2

  186,008

  Uxbridge

  1

  74,529

  Waltham Forest

  1

  130,793

  Wandsworth

  2

  117,620

  Westminster

  3

  342,063

  Total

  36

  3,427,014

  By-elections
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on the calling of local authority by-elections following the death of the sitting member with particular reference to the sensibilities of those bereaved; and if he will make a statement. [33998]

  Mr. George Howarth
  None. If the death of a councillor occurs not less than six months before the office concerned would normally have become vacant, a by-election must be held within 35 days of the receipt by the proper officer of the council of a notice of vacancy in writing signed by two electors.

  Identity Cards
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding a national young person's identity card; and if he will make a statement. [34493]
  510
  Mr. George Howarth
  Hon. Members, members of the public and other interest groups make regular representations to me for and against national identity cards, and with various purposes in mind including reducing under-age sales. However, the issues go wider than that. We are considering the options, but have no current plans to introduce a national identity card scheme.

  Millennium Compliance
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what assessment he has made of whether(a) the Fire Service College, (b) the Forensic Science Service, (c) the UK Passport Agency and (d) HM Prison Service will be fully millennium compliant by 1 January 1999; [32303]

  (2) what is his estimate of the cost of (a) the Fire Service College, (b) the Forensic Science Service, (c) the UK Passport Agency and (d) HM Prison Service achieving millennium compliance; [32301]

  (3) when (a) the Fire Service College, (b) the Forensic Science Service, (c) the UK Passport Agency and (d) HM Prison Service will each complete their examination of the options available for achieving millennium compliance. [32300]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 3 March 1998]: I refer the right hon. Member to the oral statement given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 27 November 1997, Official Report, columns 1104–05, and to his answer to a question from the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) on 3 March 1998, Official Report, column 622.

  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he or his Ministers last met the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to discuss his Department's progress towards millennium compliance. [32313]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 3 March 1998]: The Home Office has submitted outline plans to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and reported to him on them. These plans have been placed in the Library and on the Internet. So far, no meeting has been necessary.

  Prisons (Foreign Nationals)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) which external bodies received funds from his Department to offer services to foreign nationals in prison in England and Wales in each of the last three years for which figures are available; [33681]

  (2) what services his Department funds in respect of foreign nationals in prisons in England and Wales; and what funding they received in the last year for which figures are available. [33670]

  Ms Quin
  The Home Office does not provide general funding to external bodies for services to foreign nationals in prisons. However, there are a number of services purchased from external bodies by the Prison Service on behalf of foreign nationals. These include translation, interpretation and educational services, the costs of which are not kept centrally.
  511
  Additionally, the Prison Service itself provides services to meet the needs of foreign nationals. These include provision to meet religious and dietary requirements, the issue of the foreign national information pack and prisoners' information book in different languages. The Prison Service also ensures access to telephones so that prisoners can maintain contact with family members abroad. The cost of this provision, which is part of the general provision for prisoners, is met from establishment budgets and cannot be identified centrally.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many foreign nationals received a term of imprisonment for drug importation in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [33669]

  Ms Quin
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Receptions of foreign nationals under sentence into prisons in England and Wales for unlawful import/export of drugs 1993–1997

  Year

  Unlawful import/export

  1993

  260

  1994

  260

  1995

  270

  1996

  330

  1997

  380

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many foreign nationals are currently being held in gaols in England and Wales by nationality. [33679]

  Ms Quin
  Information on the population of foreign nationals in prisons in England and Wales on 31 December 1997 is given in the table.

  Population of foreign nationals in prisons in England and Wales on 31 December 19971 by nationality

  Number

  All foreign nationals

  4,664

  Total Europe

  1,735

  Albania

  16

  Armenia

  2

  Austria

  5

  Belgium

  46

  Bosnia-Herzegovina

  7

  Bulgaria

  8

  Croatia

  2

  Cyprus

  83

  Czechoslovakia

  13

  Denmark

  10

  France

  69

  Georgia

  2

  Germany

  84

  Gibraltar

  2

  Greece

  21

  Hungary

  6

  Irish Republic

  673

  Italy

  89

  Lithuania

  17

  Macedonia

  2

  Malta

  13

  Modavia

  4

  Netherland

  172

  Norway

  2

  Poland

  37

  Portugal

  42

  512

  Population of foreign nationals in prisons in England and Wales on 31 December 19971 by nationality

  Number

  Romania

  17

  Sweden

  3

  Slovakia

  7

  Spain

  43

  Switzerland

  4

  Turkey

  160

  Turkmenistan

  3

  USSR

  23

  Yugoslavia

  42

  Other

  6

  Total Asia

  817

  Bangladesh

  75

  China

  30

  Hong Kong

  9

  India

  238

  Indonesia

  4

  Korea (South)

  2

  Malaysia

  11

  Nepal

  3

  Pakistan

  330

  Philippines

  10

  Singapore

  7

  Sri Lanka

  45

  Surinam

  3

  Thailand

  2

  Vietnam

  43

  Other

  5

  Total Middle East

  120

  Afghanistan

  6

  Iran

  47

  Iraq

  22

  Israel

  10

  Jordan

  6

  Kuwait

  4

  Lebanon

  11

  Saudi Arabia

  3

  Syrian Arab

  4

  Republic United Arab Emirates

  4

  Other

  3

  Total North America

  125

  Canada

  25

  United States of America

  100

  Total Central or South America

  165

  Argentina

  4

  Brazil

  18

  Chile

  7

  Colombia

  100

  Guatemala

  2

  Honduras

  2

  Nicaragua

  4

  Peru

  3

  Uruguay

  2

  Venezuela

  17

  Other

  6

  Total West Indies

  816

  Antigua

  14

  Barbados

  24

  Cuba

  2

  Dominica

  5

  Grenada

  14

  Guyana

  32

  Haiti

  2

  Jamaica

  644

  Monsterrat

  2

  Netherlands

  2

  Antilles St. Christopher & Nevis

  2

  St. Kitts and Nevis

  6

  513

  Population of foreign nationals in prisons in England and Wales on 31 December 19971 by nationality

  Number

  St. Lucia

  25

  St. Vincent and the Grenadines

  6

  Trinidad and Tobago

  33

  Other

  3

  Total Africa

  839

  Algeria

  61

  Angola

  17

  Burundi

  4

  Cameroon, United Republic of

  6

  Central African Republic

  7

  Congo

  2

  Egypt

  7

  Ethiopia

  19

  Gambia

  10

  Ghana

  100

  Ivory Coast

  3

  Kenya

  41

  Liberia

  9

  Libya

  13

  Malawi

  3

  Mauritania

  2

  Mauritius

  8

  Morocco

  40

  Nigeria

  222

  Senegal

  3

  Sierre Leone

  15

  Somalia

  68

  South Africa

  54

  Sudan

  3

  Tanzania

  10

  Togo

  3

  Tunisia

  7

  Uganda

  39

  Zaire

  33

  Zambia

  12

  Zimbabwe

  12

  Other

  6

  Total Oceania

  41

  Australia

  24

  New Zealand

  15

  Other

  2

  Antartica

  6

  Not recorded

  385

  1Provisional figures.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many foreign nationals received a prison sentence in England and Wales in the last year for which figures are available; and how many of those receiving a prison sentence had a pre-sentence report relating to their circumstances. [33667]

  Ms Quin
  Provisional information for 1997 shows that 4,550 foreign nationals were received into Prison Service establishments in England and Wales under sentence. Information regarding the number of foreign nationals who had a pre-sentence report is not collected centrally.

  Sex Offenders
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to increase resources for the treatment of sex offenders after they leave prison. [34039]
  514
  Ms Quin
  The resources needed for the supervision of sex offenders in the community following release from prison will be determined after the comprehensive spending reviews have been completed. I cannot anticipate the outcome, although it is relevant that the provisions in the Crime and Disorder Bill for the extended supervision of sexual and violent offenders following release are estimated to generate long run net additional costs of £20 million a year.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the advantages of disclosing information about sex offenders who have been released. [34038]

  Mr. Michael
  When we implemented the Sex Offenders Act 1997, serious consideration was given to how information on sex offenders should be disclosed and in what circumstances. The general presumption that personal information should not be disclosed may be over-ridden, for the protection of children and vulnerable adults. We concluded that this should be judged on a case by case basis based on the risk posed by any individual. Guidance on the Sex Offenders Act issued last summer made clear that a risk assessment should be undertaken by the police, probation service and other child protection agencies. More detailed inter-agency guidance will be issued in due course in the light of experience since we implemented the Act.

  Anti-drugs Campaigns
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish the research undertaken for his Department by Teesside University Criminology Department on the results of anti-drugs campaigns. [34719]

  Mr. George Howarth
  In 1994/95, Teesside University Criminology Department undertook some work for the then Newcastle Drugs Prevention Team and others, including the Northern Regional Health Authority, as part of the development of local drugs prevention activities. The work included confidential interviews with young people about their attitudes to, and knowledge of, drugs misuse. It was never intended that this work should be published, and we have no plans to do so.

  Child Pornography
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many reports of child pornography made by the Internet Watch Foundation since it was established have led to prosecutions in the UK or abroad. [33333]

  Mr. Michael
  During the first year of operation, the Internet Watch Foundation has processed 781 reports referring to 4,300 items, of which only 6 per cent. apparently originated in the United Kingdom. 2,000 items were referred to Internet Service Providers as potentially illegal, and to the police via the National Criminal Intelligence Service. Of the small number of notifications relating to material known to have originated in the United Kingdom, I understand that investigations have led to an arrest in one case and in three others information has been helpful to the police. Information about articles originating abroad has facilitated two prosecutions, in Germany and Switzerland, and has been of assistance generally for intelligence purposes.
  515
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what action he is taking to increase the proportion of illegal child pornography present on UK Internet service providers' news servers which is identified and then removed; [33332]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the proportion of illegal child pornography present within the newsgroups over the last year which has been voluntarily removed by UK Internet service providers from their news servers following advice from the Internet Watch Foundation or the Metropolitan Police. [33331]

  Mr. Michael
  All child pornography is illegal and the laws relating to it apply equally on the Internet as elsewhere. United Kingdom Internet Service Providers are responsible in law for their own conscious acts and omissions. When they are notified of potentially illegal material on their news servers, they have a responsibility to remove it, and have been diligent in doing so.

  The Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) published its first annual report on 3 March, which covered the year December 1996—December 1997. Figures are not available for the total number of items of child pornography that might exist in news groups but, during the period of the report, the IWF notified United Kingdom Internet Service Providers of 2,000 potentially illegal items, reported via the hotline, almost all relating to child pornography. I understand that all the items notified to Internet Service Providers were voluntarily removed by them.

  The IWF announced on 3 March that further action was being taken to increase the effectiveness of its work. This includes: introducing new procedures to enable it to undertake pro-active scanning of problem areas and take prompt action to have potentially illegal material removed, without having first received a report via the hotline; increasing public awareness of the new hotline number, and establishing links with other hotlines which are being set up within the European Union and elsewhere.

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has received from the Metropolitan Police about the number of internet newsgroups, and the number of articles within such newsgroups, which have contained illegal child pornography over the last year. [33330]

  Mr. Michael
  The Commissioner tells me that the Metropolitan Police's Organised Crime Group Paedophilia Unit does not monitor the Internet as a matter of course. The Paedophilia Unit does investigate allegations reported to them. This unit works closely with the Metropolitan Police's Clubs and Vice Unit, and the National Criminal Intelligence Service, who are the focal point for incidents reported by the Internet Watch Foundation. The recently published Internet Watch Foundation Annual Report stated that 781 reports were received referring to over 4,300 items. 85 per cent. of actioned reports were about child pornography. Only a small proportion of reported items originated from the United Kingdom (6 per cent.); most were from the United States of America (63 per cent.) and Japan (19 per cent.).
  516
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements exist within his Department to monitor the effectiveness of current arrangements for identifying and removing child pornography which is accessible via the Internet to UK residents and businesses. [33328]

  Mr. Michael
  On 3 March, the Government announced their intention to review the work of the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF), and to report the results in the Autumn. The review will focus on the effectiveness of the arrangements for dealing with reports of potentially illegal material, the structure and composition of the IWF, extension of its priorities for action and promoting awareness of its work.

  More generally, Home Office officials are in regular contact with the IWF on the progress being made in identifying and removing child pornography from the Internet. The statistics produced by the IWF, for its management and policy boards, on reports received and action taken are forwarded to the Home Office and to the Department of Trade and Industry.

  Internet Watch Foundation
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the internet service providers offering internet access to UK residents and businesses which(a) are a party to the agreement which established the Internet Watch Foundation and (b) are not party to this agreement. [33329]

  Mr. Michael
  Most Internet Service Providers are members of the industry's trade associations—the Internet Service Providers Association (ISPA) and the London Internet Exchange (LINX)—which supported the establishment of the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) (details of their membership may be obtained from the relevant association). The issue of non-affiliated service providers will be looked at in the context of the Review of the work of the IWF which the Government announced on 3 March.

  Immigration Advisers
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his oral answers of 2 February 1998,Official Report, columns 703–04, on immigration advisers, how his Department assesses the quality of representation in immigration and asylum cases provided by those organisations funded under section 23 of the 1991 Immigration Act. [34581]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The work of the Refugee Legal Centre and Immigration Advisory Service, the two organisations funded under section 23 of the Immigration Act 1971, is regulated through the framework laid down in the respective Conditions of Grant-in-Aid, under which they are required to agree performance targets and measures with the Home Office and to provide regular reports on the levels of performance achieved.

  World Cup
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from(a) football organisations, (b) the emergency services, (c) the organisers of the World Cup and (d) the French

  517
  authorities concerning the prevention of known football hooligans from (i) travelling to France during the World Cup and (ii) obtaining tickets for the World Cup. [34197]

  Mr. Michael
  These issues have been discussed regularly during the preparations for the World Cup, most recently during the European Union (EU) Presidency seminar at Blackburn on the policing of football. The seminar was successful on a number of counts, not least the attendance of a range of groups and organisations from within the EU and the associated states. These included police, football associations, supporters groups and the French Organising Committee (CFO). The seminar allowed frank and informed discussions at an international level on the measures considered necessary to minimise the ability of football hooligans travelling to matches in other countries at club and international level and the adoption of ticketing policies to maximise effective ground configuration. The seminar provided a number of initiatives which will be taken forward under the aegis of the EU Police Co-operation Working Group.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken to ensure that those guilty of football offences in France during the World Cup are brought to trial in France. [34190]

  Mr. Michael
  The French authorities have indicated that they will prosecute those suspected of having committed offences. A State Magistrate will be appointed for each World Cup venue and offenders will be brought before a court within 48 hours.

  The prosecution of offenders in France is a matter for the French authorities. It has been made clear in discussion with the French Organising Committee (CFO) and the Ministry of the Interior that the United Kingdom Government strongly support the intention of the French authorities to prosecute offenders and support the firm application of the law to those who choose to break it.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken to prevent the large-scale deportation of football fans from France during the World Cup; and what representation he has made to the French authorities on this matter. [34191]

  Mr. Michael
  The decision on how to deal with those who cause trouble in France during the World Cup is a matter for the French authorities. My right hon. Friend is satisfied that the French authorities will apply the law firmly but fairly. They have indicated that they will look to prosecute those suspected of having committed offences and there is no reason to believe that deportation will be used as an alternative to prosecution.

  Football-related Offences
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people in the UK have been convicted of a football-related offence in the last(a) year, (b) two years and (c) five years; and how many are currently the subject of restriction orders. [34199]
  518
  Mr. Michael
  There are currently some 30 restriction orders in place, an increase of 20 orders since my right hon. Friend's initiative at Christmas 1997 to encourage police, the courts and prosecutors to seek restriction orders for football-related offences. The figures requested are as follows:

  Year

  Number of convictions for football-related offences1

  1992–93

  4,588

  1993–94

  4,227

  1994–95

  3,840

  1995–96

  3,437

  1996–97

  3,577

  1The offences concerned are those set out in Schedule 1 of the Football Spectators Act 1989.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps the Government have taken to reach bilateral agreements with other Governments so that domestic courts can impose restriction orders on those convicted of football offences abroad. [34194]

  Mr. Michael
  Bilateral agreements are presently in place with Italy, Norway, Republic of Ireland, Scotland and Sweden. We are presently in consultation with the French and Danish Governments on reaching such an agreement.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken to encourage additional countries to ratify and to implement the European Convention on Spectator Violence. [34193]

  Mr. Michael
  This is a matter for the Council of Europe, which places great store in the contribution the United Kingdom makes to the work of the Standing Committee that oversees the Convention. Forty-seven countries have ratified already. The United Kingdom participates fully in the work of the Standing Committee which oversees implementation of the Convention and, through the Standing Committee, encourages the wide adoption and implementation of the Convention.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many British football fans were arrested during the football World Cup finals held in Italy in 1990. [34198]

  Mr. Michael
  The information available—which is not comprehensive—indicates that there were 240 arrests of England supporters during Italia '90. Of these, 225 were deported and the remaining 15 convicted of offences and given a term of imprisonment of four months, suspended for two years.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken to promote the use of restriction orders for those convicted of football-related offences. [34196]

  Mr. Michael
  Home Office officials wrote to all chief police officers in the run-up to the Christmas 1997 football programme reminding them of the powers available under the Football Spectators Act 1989 and encouraging the use of these powers where applicable. The Lord Chancellor's Department and the Crown Prosecution Service wrote in similar terms to courts and prosecutors respectively.
  519
  I am pleased to report that, since that initiative, the number of restriction orders in force has increased from 10 to 30 and we anticipate that this number will increase.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken to deny access to football stadiums to those in possession of racist or offensive banners and to prevent their display in stadiums. [34192]

  Mr. Michael
  Section 23 of the Public Order Act 1986 provides that a person is guilty of an offence if he intends racial hatred to be stirred up or racial hatred is likely to be stirred up by displaying, publishing, distributing or broadcasting written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting. The enforcement of these provisions is an operational matter for the police and the decision to deny access to grounds is a matter for the individual stadium owners and the police.

  The Football Task Force is looking into racism in football as a priority and is expected to report shortly.

  Restriction Orders
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps the Government have taken to increase the penalty for failing to comply with the terms of a restriction order. [34195]

  Mr. Michael
  My right hon. Friend has asked officials to review the existing legislation on football-related offences including provisions relating to the issue and enforcement of restriction orders.

  Surplus Property and Land
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the properties and land owned

  Table A: Number of offenders aged 10 to under 18 cautioned for offences1 relating to prostitution by age and sex, 1992–1996

  England and Wales

  Ages

  Offence description/year

  10

  11

  12

  13

  14

  m

  f

  m

  f

  m

  f

  m

  f

  m

  f

  Soliciting by a man [Sexual Offences Act 1956 532]

  1992

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  1993

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  1994

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1995

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1996

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kerb-crawling [Sexual Offences Act 1985 S1]

  1992

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1993

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1994

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1995

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1996

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Persistent soliciting of women for the purpose of prostitution [Sexual Offences Act 1985 S2]

  1992

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1993

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1994

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1995

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1996

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  520
  by his Department which he has identified as surplus to requirements, giving in each case their estimated value. [30316]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 23 February 1998]: The requested information on non-residential surplus properties and land owned by my Department is in the table.

  Records of the residential properties owned by the Home Office are not centralised and a list of those that are surplus could be made only at disproportionate cost. Progress in reducing the number of these is reported annually. The latest was on 20 November 1997, Official Report, column 303.

  Priority

  Location

  Estimated value £

  Branston Store

  Burton-on-Trent,

  350,000

  (part surplus)

  Derbyshire

  Steventon Store

  Steventon, Oxfordshire

  3,250,000

  Gringley

  Gringley-on-the-Hill,

  345,000

  Nottinghamshire

  Poltimore

  Broadclyst, Devon

  150,000

  Day's Lane

  Bedford, Bedfordshire

  350,000

  Crown Buildings

  Hope Cove. Devon

  35,000

  Prostitution
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many under-18s were(a) cautioned, (b) charged and (c) convicted following involvement in prostitution for each year since 1992. [34360]

  Mr. Michael
  [holding answer 13 March 1998]: Detailed data on the number of people charged are not collected centrally.

  Information available on the number of young people cautioned, prosecuted and convicted for prostitution related offences is given in the tables.
  521

  Table A: Number of offenders aged 10 to under 18 cautioned for offences1 relating to prostitution by age and sex, 1992–1996

  England and Wales

  Ages

  Offence description/year

  10

  11

  12

  13

  14

  m

  f

  m

  f

  m

  f

  m

  f

  m

  f

  Common prostitute behaving in a riotous and indecent manner in a public place [Vagrancy Act 1824 S3 & S4(pt)]

  1992

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1993

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1994

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1995

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1996

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Common prostitute loitering or soliciting for the purposes of prostitution [Street Offences Act 1959 S1]

  1992

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  6

  1993

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  —

  32

  1994

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  5

  —

  19

  1995

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  4

  —

  11

  1996

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  5

  —

  16

  Table A: Number of offenders aged 10 to under 18 cautioned for offences1 relating to prostitution by age and sex, 1992–1996

  England and Wales

  Ages

  Total 10–17

  Offence description/year

  15

  16

  17

  m

  f

  m

  f

  m

  f

  m

  f

  Soliciting by a man [Sexual Offences Act 1956 S32]

  1992

  2

  —

  2

  —

  4

  —

  10

  —

  1993

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  —

  6

  —

  1994

  1

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  4

  —

  1995

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1996

  —

  —

  1

  —

  3

  —

  4

  —

  Kerb-crawling [Sexual Offences Act 1985 S1]

  1992

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1993

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1994

  —

  —

  —

  1

  3

  —

  3

  1

  1995

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  2

  1996

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  —

  Persistent soliciting of women for the purpose of prostitution [Sexual Offences Act 1985 S2]

  1992

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1993

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1994

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1995

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  2

  —

  4

  1996

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  3

  Common prostitute behaving in a riotous and indecent manner in a public place [Vagrancy Act 1824 S3 & S4(pt)]

  1992

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1993

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1994

  —

  —

  —

  4

  —

  —

  —

  4

  1995

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1996

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Common prostitute loitering or soliciting for the purposes of prostitution [Street Offences Act 1959 S1]

  1992

  1

  41

  —

  62

  —

  189

  1

  301

  1993

  —

  32

  —

  82

  —

  145

  —

  296

  1994

  —

  25

  —

  91

  —

  156

  —

  297

  1995

  1

  27

  —

  63

  2

  156

  3

  263

  1996

  —

  31

  —

  74

  —

  160

  —

  288

  1 Generally, attempting, conspiring, inciting, aiding, abetting, causing or permitting a crime is classified under the heading of the crime itself, though in certain cases it can be a separate offence.

  Table B: Number of defendants aged 10 to under 18 prosecuted at magistrates' courts for offences1 relating to prostitution by age and sex, 1992–1996

  England and Wales

  Ages

  Offence description/year

  10

  11

  12

  13

  14

  m

  f

  m

  f

  m

  f

  m

  f

  m

  f

  Soliciting by a man [Sexual Offences Act 1956 S32]

  1992

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1993

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1994

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1995

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1996

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  522 523

  Table B: Number of defendants aged 10 to under 18 prosecuted at magistrates' courts for offences1 relating to prostitution by age and sex, 1992–1996

  England and Wales

  Ages

  Offence description/year

  10

  11

  12

  13

  14

  m

  f

  m

  f

  m

  f

  m

  f

  m

  f

  Kerb-crawling [Sexual Offences Act 1985 S1]

  1992

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1993

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1994

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1995

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1996

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Persistent soliciting of women for the purpose of prostitution [Sexual Offences Act 1985 S2]

  1992

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1993

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1994

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1995

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1996

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Common prostitute behaving in a riotous and indecent manner in a public place [Vagrancy Act 1824 S3 & S4(pt)]

  1992

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1993

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1994

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1995

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1996

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Common prostitute loitering or soliciting for the purposes of prostitution [Street Offences Act 1959 S1]

  1992

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1993

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1994

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  3

  —

  5

  1995

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1996

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Table B: Number of defendants aged 10 to under 18 prosecuted at magistrates' courts for offences1 relating to prostitution be age and sex,1992–1996

  England and Wales

  Ages

  Total 10–17

  Offence description/year

  15

  16

  17

  m

  f

  m

  f

  m

  f

  m

  f

  Soliciting by a man [Sexual Offences Act 1956 S32]

  1992

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1993

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1994

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1995

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1996

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kerb-crawling [Sexual Offences Act 1985 S1]

  1992

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1993

  —

  1

  —

  —

  2

  —

  2

  1

  1994

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1995

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1996

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  2

  —

  Persistent soliciting of women for the purpose of prostitution [Sexual Offences Act 1985 S2]

  1992

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1993

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1994

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1995

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1996

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Common prostitute behaving in a riotous and indecent manner in a public place [Vagrancy Act 1824 S3 & S4(pt)]

  1992

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1993

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1994

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1995

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1996

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  524 525

  Table B: Number of defendants aged 10 to under 18 prosecuted at magistrates' courts for offences1 relating to prostitution be age and sex, 1992–1996

  England and Wales

  Ages

  Total 10–17

  Offence description/year

  15

  16

  17

  m

  f

  m

  f

  m

  f

  m

  f

  Common prostitute loitering or soliciting for the purposes of prostitution [Street Offences Act 1959 S1]

  1992

  —

  10

  —

  35

  3

  237

  3

  284

  1993

  —

  8

  —

  27

  —

  123

  —

  159

  1994

  —

  14

  —

  44

  1

  103

  1

  170

  1995

  1

  8

  2

  29

  4

  102

  7

  140

  1996

  —

  6

  —

  51

  2

  153

  2

  210

  1Generally, attempting, conspiring, inciting, aiding, abetting, causing or permitting a crime is classified under the heading of the crime itself, though in certain cases it can be a separate offence.

  Table C: Number of offenders aged 10 to under 18 convicted at all courts for offences1 relating to prostitution by age and sex, 1992–1996

  England and Wales

  Ages

  Offence description/year

  10

  11

  12

  13

  14

  m

  f

  m

  f

  m

  f

  m

  f

  m

  f

  Soliciting by a man [Sexual Offences Act 1956 S32]

  1992

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1993

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1994

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1995

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1996

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kerb-crawling [Sexual Offences Act 1985 S1]

  1992

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1993

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1994

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1995

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1996

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Persistent soliciting of women for the purpose of prostitution [Sexual Offences Act 1985 S2]

  1992

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1993

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1994

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1995

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1996

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Common prostitute behaving in a riotous and indecent manner in a public place [Vagrancy Act 1824 S3 & S4(pt)]

  1992

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1993

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1994

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1995

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1996

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Common prostitute loitering or soliciting for the purposes of prostitution [Street Offences Act 1959 S1]

  1992

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1993

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1994

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  3

  1995

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1996

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Table C: Number of offenders aged 10 to under 18 convicted at all courts for offences1 relating to prostitution by age and sex, 1992–1996

  England and Wales

  Ages

  Total 10–17

  Offence description/year

  15

  16

  17

  m

  f

  m

  f

  m

  f

  m

  f

  Soliciting by a man [Sexual Offences Act 1956 S32]

  1992

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1993

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1994

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1995

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1996

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  526 527

  Table C: Number of offenders aged 10 to under 18 convicted at all courts for offences1 relating to prostitution by age and sex, 1992–1996

  England and Wales

  Ages

  Total 10–17

  Offence description/year

  15

  16

  17

  m

  f

  m

  f

  m

  f

  m

  f

  Kerb-crawling [Sexual Offences Act 1985 S1]

  1992

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1993

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1994

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1995

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1996

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Persistent soliciting of women for the purpose of prostitution [Sexual Offences Act 1985 S2]

  1992

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1993

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1994

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1995

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1996

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Common prostitute behaving in a riotous and indecent manner in a public place [Vagrancy Act 1824 S3 & S4(pt)]

  1992

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1993

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1994

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1995

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1996

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Common prostitute loitering or soliciting for the purposes of prostitution [Street Offences Act 1959 S1]

  1992

  —

  7

  —

  25

  3

  215

  3

  248

  1993

  —

  7

  —

  25

  1

  73

  1

  105

  1994

  —

  13

  —

  35

  —

  89

  —

  141

  1995

  —

  4

  1

  25

  3

  72

  4

  101

  1996

  —

  4

  —

  44

  2

  129

  2

  177

  1Generally, attempting, conspiring, inciting, aiding, abetting, causing or permitting a crime is classified under the heading of the crime itself, though in certain cases it can be a separate offence.

  528

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Ely.
The Earl of Dartmouth The Earl of Dartmouth—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Party Political Fundraising
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action has been taken following the letter on party political fundraising from the Secretary of State for the Home Department, referred to by Lord Williams of Mostyn on 12th February (HL Deb, cols. 1258–9).
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, my right honourable friend has now received a reply from the Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party. This said that any donation which was shown to have come from illegal sources or otherwise breached the rules of the Conservative Party would be returned. There was no comment on my right honourable friend's suggestion that a donation, said to be of £1 million, to the Conservative Party from Mr. C. K. Ma should be donated to anti-drug charities, nor indeed on any other specific question put by my right honourable friend.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Does he accept that the one thing about which we all probably agree is the threat posed to the lives of many thousands of young people in this country as a result of trafficking in cocaine and heroin? That being so, does the noble Lord agree that it is quite an extraordinary situation that a British political party should accept a donation of £1 million from a family deeply involved in the drugs business in South East Asia?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the questions to which specific replies came there none included the following: "Why did Mr. Ma give the money to the Tory Party? Was he promised that in return for his donation, charges against Ma for drug trafficking would be dropped? Is he now saying he wants his money back because explicit expectations associated with the gift have not been made? Were you or your party aware of the Ma family's alleged links with drug trafficking?" It was in response to those questions that the answer came from the Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party:
"I am afraid I can give you no further help with your questions".
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, given the lack of interest from the Opposition Front Bench in this
452
Question, does the noble Lord agree that the most satisfactory outcome of this problem would be if this £1 million were donated to a charity which has the responsibility of looking after the interests of those young people whose lives have been seriously damaged as a result of the drugs business in this country?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, that was the suggestion made by the Home Secretary as long ago as 21st January of this year. Indeed, I can say to your Lordships that the Home Secretary and I have been all agog waiting for the reply. But then it got into the category of Billy Bunter's postal order, or possibly the dog had eaten it.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, who has asked the Question, will be very specific in the allegations he has made about particular people who cannot answer for themselves in this place. My party has agreed to co-operate fully with the committee which will ask all these questions and my party will address them fully in its answers. Therefore, will the Minister answer the questions which have been asked many times in this place about the details of the blind trusts—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Blind trusts have been held and closed without anything publicly being declared about the detail, and blind trusts are still running.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I wonder whether I am alone in seeing a qualitative moral difference between blind trusts, which are available as a matter of public record, and a simple question which was put by the Home Secretary, echoed on a number of occasions by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, as to whether it is appropriate to take £1 million from a family, the father of which presently resides in Taiwan—there is no extradition between Taiwan and Hong Kong—and whose nickname apparently is "White Powder Ma".
Lord Razzall: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is quite extraordinary to listen to the words from the noble Baroness on the Opposition Front Bench regarding blind trusts when our understanding is that the evidence that the Conservative Party has put to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neill, with regard to the proposals for alterations to the law and procedures on political fundraising contains a suggestion from the Tory Party that, contrary to what it has said in the past, it should be permitted for donations to be given anonymously to a body that will be set up by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neill, and his committee, and that body will then pass on those donations to the party of choice of the donor? Does the Minister agree that that is somewhat inconsistent with the rather pejorative comments made by the noble Baroness regarding blind trusts?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord may well have a point there. I looked up the representations made by the Conservative Party. Perhaps it will be helpful if I read them out as sometimes these things are overlooked. "Blind trusts" is the rubric, and this is the Conservative Party's proposition:
"We believe there is an argument in favour of a form of blind trust that should be examined by the committee".
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that my father knew Lloyd George?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am sure that is right because it is a matter of public record.
Lord Newby: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the only sensible and easy way to deal with these kinds of questions is simply to have a law requiring people giving substantial amounts of money to political parties to declare it openly?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I believe that the sensible, proper and appropriate way is to wait until the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neill, brings forth his recommendations so that we can discuss them in a spirit of amity in your Lordships' House.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, does the noble Lord know who it was who asked the questions of the Conservative Party—which I support?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the questions were put to the present leader of the Conservative Party by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, as I indicated when I answered a Question a few weeks ago. The reply did not come from Mr. Hague.

Prisons: Educational Provision
2.44 p.m.
Lord Quirk Lord Quirk asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have to enhance the provision of education and training for inmates of HM prisons and young offender institutions.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the Prison Service has a number of initiatives for enhancing education and training in prisons and young offender institutions. They include piloting welfare-to-work programmes; incorporating "key skills" into the curriculum; a model curriculum for juveniles; a nationally-accredited preparation-for-work course; delivering basic skills training; developing family literacy projects and literacy mentoring; and screening for dyslexia.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that encouraging reply. Is it not the case that, although the 65,000 inmates of Her Majesty's institutions are but a very small fraction of our population, they are a seriously skewed fraction, being
454
not only disproportionately prone to creating fear and misery, but disproportionately young, disproportionately male, disproportionately from unhappy homes and—to my point—disproportionately ill-educated? Should we not be making a special effort to remedy at least that last deficit, given that in apparently more optimistic times the institutions concerned were known as "houses of correction"? Can there be any possible justification for the priority shown in the most recent annual report of the Prison Service for 1995–96 that, of the £25,000 per annum cost per inmate, in that year only 2 per cent. was devoted to education and training? A fortiori, how can we justify perversely reducing the amount allotted to education and training over the past two years, given that in those two years the prison population has vastly increased?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord has a point about the disproportionate numbers in the categories that he identified. The prison spend on education in 1996–97 was £34,481,000. In 1997–98 it is estimated at £36 million, so there will be that degree of increase. We are concerned to echo the noble Lord's comments. Welfare-to-work is very important and I entirely agree with what the noble Lord proposes. We now have 11 pilot schemes in different establishments. As regards preparation for work and work skills, initial evaluations will take place after six months and a full evaluation after one year. The trial itself is being taken seriously and £1.5 million is being devoted to it.
Baroness Sharpies: My Lords, can the noble Lord say how many prisons have writers in residence?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I cannot.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, does the Minister accept that, so long as the present gross overcrowding of prisons continues and so long as the severe budget cuts continue, there is no real prospect, to quote the words of the Question, of enhancing,
"the provision of education and training"?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, gross overcrowding is of course a very serious problem. The present figure for inmates as at 16th March is 64,956. We have to manage, to an extent, what we have inherited. But I stress that many positive initiatives are going ahead. We cannot simply throw up our hands in horror. It is very important that the prison department regards rehabilitation and education for a return to a decent life extremely seriously.
The Lord Bishop of Ely: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that these initiatives amount to a quiet and sustained revolution in aspiration and achievement laid out in the most welcome Green Paper, The Learning Age?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I hope so. Things are improving. There are now 48 different NVQs offered in prison; there were 24 in 1992; and

455
17,309 individual NVQ units were awarded to prisoners last year, which is 25 per cent. up on the year before. Over 1,800 prisoners achieved full NVQs last year—50 per cent. over the previous year and three times the number of the year before that. There is at least a gleam of hope within what is otherwise sometimes regarded as a gloomy picture.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the figures for 1995–96 and 1996–97 show a cut in the amount of time spent in prison education in at least 71 per cent. of prison establishments? Does he accept that those figures are supplemented by the fact that in 1995 each prisoner spent an average of 1.8 hours in prison education whereas in 1997 that had dropped to 1.5 hours? Will the Minister explain what will be done to remedy that situation?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we look not only at the education component, but at purposeful activity generally, which includes work; education and training; supervised PE and sport; evening education; religious activity; social, domestic and family visits; prison induction courses, and resettlement and rehabilitation activities, not all of which come within the component normally thought of as "education". The key performance indicator is that each prisoner should spend at least 22.5 hours per week in purposeful activity. In fact, to the end of January this year, that was exceeded and the figure was 23.2 hours.
Lord Acton: My Lords—
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords—
Earl Russell: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order!
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Richard): My Lords, we are doing quite well for time at the moment. I think that perhaps it is time for our side to ask one question, then the noble Baroness, and then, no doubt, the noble Earl.
Lord Acton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in his report on women in prisons in May last year the Chief Inspector of Prisons recommended at paragraph 12.126 that there should be greater co-ordination and co-operation on educational matters by prisons holding women? Has that been set in motion?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I was aware of that recommendation. That is one reason why an assistant director has been appointed to deal with the sort of issues to which my noble friend has referred which relate particularly to the problems that some women suffer in our prison regime.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, this appears to be a popular topic this afternoon. Is the Minister aware that for at least the past 30 years, if not longer, there has been a Dowty workshop in Gloucester
456
Prison—Dowty being local industrialists—which trains for skills and then undertakes to employ those qualifying when they leave prison? I have always thought that a wonderful example and I wonder why such an example has not been followed more widely by prisons in partnership with local industry.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right that such schemes have the great virtue of being focused, with the result that we are not training people for opportunities which may not exist, thus not affording them the opportunity to lead a fruitful life. Of course, such schemes depend on the flexibility of the local prison governor and on the generosity of local employers, such as that to which the noble Baroness referred.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that his answers have demonstrated that the penal policy of Her Majesty's Government and their budgetary policy are incompatible? Which one are they going to change?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, they are not incompatible. There are constraints on public spending, but that does not limit the power of reflective imagination to spend the available money in the most appropriate way.

Gulf War Illnesses: Research Funding
2.54 p.m.
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
What funds have been allocated to which research institutions for clinical research into Gulf war illnesses by the Gulf War Illness Panel of the Medical Research Council.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Gilbert): My Lords, none of the Medical Research Council's own funds has been allocated by it for research into Gulf veterans' illnesses. However, in line with the council's recommendations, the MoD is funding two epidemiological studies to investigate the health of Gulf veterans and their families. In addition, I am pleased to announce that the MoD intends shortly to place with King's College, London a contract for a programme of neurophysiological tests on randomly selected Gulf veterans who have been identified through the US-funded epidemiological study which is being carried out under Professor Wessely. This decision has been taken in consultation with the Government's Chief Scientific Adviser and the Medical Research Council.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. However, is he aware that epidemiological studies are not clinical studies? If the King's College study is to be the only such study, I must advise him that other aspects of the Gulf veterans' illnesses need to be looked into. Is the Minister aware that the chairman of the Gulf War Illness Panel of the Medical Research Council is also the head of

457
academic medicine at King's College Hospital; that the research which the noble Lord has just mentioned was never put out to tender or advertised; and that there was no competition? Is he also aware that, when the original advertisements relating to Gulf war illness research were put out nearly two years ago, anyone who had put in a protocol for clinical research was rejected without any reason being given by the Medical Research Council? Can the Minister say when those people will be told why their applications were rejected and why the current research has not been put out to tender?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, the noble Countess has asked me a great many questions and I shall do my best to answer. Yes, I am aware that there is a difference between clinical research and epidemiological research. We do not rule out the possibility of further clinical tests being carried out on other groups in due course. As to the process by which the contract was awarded, I shall be happy to look into the points raised by the noble Countess.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, this is an immensely complicated pie, if that is not too mixed a metaphor, and many people have fingers in it. Have the Government appointed an individual to co-ordinate all the work and, if not, will they do so?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, the work is being co-ordinated under the authority of my honourable friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, the House will be aware that a very large amount of money is being spent by the Americans on researching Gulf war syndrome. Can the Minister advise the House whether any of that research will take into account the experiences of the British and the French armed forces in the theatre of the Iraq conflict?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. The United States is in a position to devote far more resources to this subject than we are. I can assure my noble friend that there is a full and continuing exchange between our two governments on the results that we come up with. Unfortunately, so far the United States is no nearer a solution than we are. I am not aware of any significant research being carried out on this subject in France.

Gulf Forces: EU Support
2.57 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wath Lord Hardy of Wath asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether other European Union member states have been requested to participate in the military force deployed in the Gulf area in order to maintain the pressure required to secure Iraq's continued compliance with the United Nations agreement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, during the recent crisis we did not request military participation from EU partners. The majority of EU states supported the UK position. In addition, some either contributed directly to the military presence in the Gulf or offered logistical support. The details are as follows: Belgium agreed to send a frigate; the Netherlands agreed to send a frigate; Denmark agreed to send one C130 Hercules transport aircraft; Germany agreed to make air bases available; Portugal agreed to the use of available air bases and Spain agreed to make air bases available. In addition, Finland, Italy, Austria and Sweden acknowledged that military action would be necessary if diplomacy failed.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer, which is a little disappointing since our partner states would share in the rejoicing if the effort so far proceeding resulted in the removal or destruction of Iraq's quite horrid weaponry. Is it not the case, however, that those countries which are not making particularly significant contributions are among those most fervently calling for the establishment of a European defence pillar, and that one cannot be sure that they would contribute very much towards it?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, my noble friend says that he finds the Answer a little disappointing. In view of the fact that so many at the time claimed that the United Kingdom and the United States were isolated in their stance on Iraq, I disagree with my noble friend's assessment. Noble Lords may be interested to learn that in addition a number of other countries either offered direct contributions to the military presence in the Gulf or made available logistic support. Those countries included Australia, Canada, Poland, Norway, Romania, New Zealand and Argentina. I believe that the alliance that was established was quite wide ranging.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that the Government consulted their European Union partners as fully as possible in the run-up to the Iraq crisis? The United Kingdom has the presidency of the Union. It appeared a little odd that we did not convene a special meeting to discuss this question, given that the Treaty of Amsterdam contains a special clause which provides that permanent members of the Security Council shall inform and consult EU partners. How much was done?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, that question has been raised in your Lordships' House in the past. I reiterate that Iraq was discussed regularly at all levels in the EU. During February alone the Iraqi crisis was discussed at five different high-level EU meetings, including twice by EU Foreign Ministers. The crisis arose due to Iraq's non-compliance with the UN's Security Council resolutions, and therefore it was logical that the UN should take the lead in the crisis. The noble Lord may like to know, however, that the WEU

459
contributed to the international action in the build-up to the Gulf War by co-ordinating the European naval contribution to the blockade of Iraq.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I note that the countries cited by the noble Baroness in her first Answer were all western European. In her second answer the countries to which she referred were also "white", if that is not an improper term, and included countries in eastern Europe. What approaches were made to Middle Eastern and Arab states and what was their response?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his question. I felt that my previous answers were becoming too long and perhaps testing your Lordships' patience. However, as the noble Lord asks the question, the countries were Bahrain, Oman, Kuwait and Qatar as well as the Czech Republic and Hungary, who also offered practical support during the recent crisis.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, what help has the European Union been asked to give in resuscitating the Iraqi National Congress which, after all, affords a much better long-term prospect for changing the system of government in Iraq and replacing Saddam with a democratic system? Is it right that the Americans have given 38 million dollars to the promotion of a more vigorous policy by the INC, and how much will the Europeans give to supplement that?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as I understand the noble Lord, he asks about the establishment of an effective opposition within Iraq. We support and encourage, as do our European Union colleagues, the formation of a united representative opposition to Saddam's regime.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, now that the crisis is over, as one of my noble friend's Back Benchers who gave her some awkward moments, at the great risk of damaging her career, perhaps I may place on record my deep and sincere appreciation of the way in which she has mastered this very, very difficult brief. I shall be in the Bishops' Bar in half an hour's time.

Business
3.3 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lady Farrington of Ribbleton will, with the leave of the House, repeat in the form of a Statement an answer to a Private Notice Question in another place on the situation in the Maze Prison.

Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
460
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 11th March), Bill read a third time, and passed.

National Lottery Bill [H.L.]
3.5 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 5 [The new good cause and the re-allocation of lottery money]:
Lord Skidelsky Lord Skidelsky moved the amendment:
Page 8, line 12, leave out subsection (9).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as this is my last appearance before your Lordships' House on this matter I take the opportunity afforded by this amendment to sum up our main objections to the Bill. They are four in number. I shall do this as quickly as I can because I do not want to delay the House unduly. The first objection concerns the character of the new good cause. It is very different from the others. It is an integral part of the Government's social programmes, not a desirable extra. As such, it has two consequences. First, the new opportunities fund will be much more directed as to what it should do than the other distributors. The much greater powers that the Secretary of State has taken under the Bill are a direct consequence of the new good cause. The second consequence is that the new good cause is voracious. The Government have already announced three initiatives. There are sure to be others added. That is why we expect that over time the new opportunities fund will take a larger and larger share of the total of national lottery money available for distribution. That is our first objection to the Bill.
Our second criticism arises from the Government's refusal to entrench the shares of lottery moneys going to the arts, sport, the national heritage and charities. Together with the Liberal Democrats, we have repeatedly asked for such entrenchment and the Minister has always refused. It is hard to resist the conclusion that the Government regard the flow of money to these causes as residual—the amounts of money left over after their prior commitments to the new opportunities fund and NESTA have been met. I have read carefully what the Minister said at Report. He promised that,
"barring the extremely unlikely circumstance in which lottery income for good causes is less than £10 billion in total"—
that is, over the existing seven-year contract period—
"we shall ensure that each of the existing good causes receives by 2001 the £1.8 billion expected when the lottery started".—[Official Report, 9/3/98; col. 21.]
They have already received £1 billion each under the legislation of the previous government. Of the remaining expected total of £5 billion, the National Millennium Commission will get £1 billion and the new opportunities fund another £1 billion, leaving £800 million each for the remaining good causes; that

461
is, for the arts, national heritage, sport and charities. Therefore, they will lose £200 million each under the new legislation. Admittedly, this is a loss in relation to the expected £10 billion rather than the originally estimated £9 billion. Therefore, the Minister was able to argue that their original expectation had been left undisturbed. But this is a feeble argument, as my noble friend Lord Crickhowell pointed out at Report. The original expectations were not for a sum of money but for a percentage. No one knew in 1993 that the money would be £9 billion, just as no one today can say for certain that over the next three-and-a-half years the lottery will have £5 billion, £4 billion or even £3 billion to distribute. Suppose that the economy goes into recession. Stranger things have happened, even under Labour governments.
Does the Minister claim that in such circumstances people will go on spending the same on the lottery as they now do? He would be very incautious if he were to do so. That is why percentages are at the heart of the matter. The Minister cannot guarantee money but he can guarantee percentages. That he has always refused to do.
Let me rephrase the questions I asked on Report. Will the Minister assure us that in the event of the total for distribution over the next three-and-a-half years falling below what is expected he will protect the £1.8 billion that he has promised for the four good causes? Will he give an undertaking that in the event of the total for distribution exceeding the £10 billion he will ensure that a fair share of that surplus goes to those good causes?
Our third criticism concerns the commercial aspects of NESTA—the new endowment set up to help science, technology and the arts. We do not believe that it should become a business angel. It is not set up to second-guess the market, and it should not be trying to do so. I have put that argument repeatedly during the Bill's passage, but it has been water off a duck's back so far as concerns the Government. They will have to live with the consequences.
Finally, I come to the subject of the amendment. I have just one thing to add to what I said on Report. It arises directly from the Minister's remark:
"Carrying the re-allocation of funding back to October 1997 does not affect the total money re-allocated from the existing good causes to the NOF and NESTA".—[Official Report, 9/3/98; col. 31.]
I am glad that we have at last a candid admission that the Government have been re-allocating money from last October. There is no fiction about those shadow accounts in that statement.
The Minister said that had that re-allocation not started, the new opportunities fund's share would have had to be set higher and the existing distributors' share lower than is now the case to make up for lost time. He asked what was improper about that. What is improper about it is that the national opportunities fund was not entitled to receive a penny of the money before the Bill became law. Had the Government wanted the new opportunities fund to have the £1 billion that they imprudently promised in their manifesto they should have put a higher percentage in the Bill with a lower
462
percentage for the existing distributors. That would have been the honest thing to do. It would also have made transparent the extent of their raid on the four good causes. I understand why they preferred to do it the way that they did but it is underhand and sets a thoroughly bad precedent. I beg to move.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I have a number of questions about the amendment. Its purpose is to expose some of the problems that we see over the way in which the new opportunities fund has been set up. First, if subsection (9) were to be left out of the Bill, what effect would that have on the moneys that have been set aside? If the money had to be put back into the funds immediately, would that mean an enormous cash injection to the existing five good causes? Could they then go ahead with some of the projects that they have put on hold? If that is the case, the Minister may have been mistaken when he said that it would have no effect on the projects that the five good causes are planning.
At an earlier stage of the Bill, the Minister said that the Government needed to set up these shadow accounts retrospectively so that the money would be available for the new opportunities fund to put in place immediately the Bill became law. He even went so far as to say that if the money were not made available, 25 per cent. of money available for good causes would have to be put aside and spent on the new opportunities fund to fund the new initiatives. I have a slight problem here, because we have had the jargon of the people's lottery. But these new initiatives have to be classified as government initiatives. The Minister said that the projects had already been put forward and so they had to go forward. I examined carefully what was said at the previous stage. I find that they were initiatives put forward by the Government in their manifesto, and this is a way of funding them.
I have a problem also with the fact that the figure would have to be 25 per cent. if the matter could not be dealt with retrospectively. I find that a seductive argument, because it is open ended. These are government initiatives. So if something comes forward which is said by the Government to have massive popular appeal they might have to provide for a larger percentage of lottery money to be allocated to it. Is that the Government's intention? The least we can expect is an assurance from the Government.
I offer the Minister this salutary thought. If a Liberal Democrat government were to be formed after the next election, this would be a Liberal Democrat new opportunities fund. We would be able to push it in our direction. A proposition that the Government might find less attractive is that if the Conservatives were to win the next election, it would be a Conservative new opportunities fund. I support the initiatives put forward by the new opportunities fund. But they are open ended. There is a good deal of concern that they will follow the political agenda of the party in power.
One of the reasons why I cannot support the amendment is that I support the formation of NESTA. I agree with the underlying reason for its formation. I like the idea of the Government becoming a business angel. However, I have difficulties over the way that the

463
money has been allocated. I have asked in the past for some examples of shadow accounts. I have not received any examples. The Minister may have some. We are talking about retrospective legislation. In the past, when we have discussed retrospective legislation, we have always been met with precedents. I find it difficult to believe that this might not be used as a precedent for the Government to enact retrospective legislation in the future.
3.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful, paradoxically, to the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, for introducing the amendment as he did, because he gave a summary of the more serious objections which, I know, he and his party have to the Bill. I realise, as he does, of course, that the first three points were not specifically relevant to the amendment. But that helps us to treat, as I think we must learn to do, the Motion that the Bill do now pass as a formality rather than a repetition of earlier debate. Although he will forgive me if I respond only to the amendment, it was welcome to have the noble Lord's broader views on the record at this stage.
The noble Lord made the points about the amendment extensively in Grand Committee and on Report. It behoves me to repeat, with all the force that I can, that we are not doing anything illegal or improper. There is some misconception that the Government and the distributors have been acting illegally by keeping shadow accounts since last October which show how the National Lottery Development Fund would be distributed if the legislation were in force. There is nothing illegal about that arrangement. Neither the department nor the distributors needs any statutory authority to keep such accounts.
I say in response to the fourth question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that that is why there are no precedents in legislation for us to bring before the House. It has never been a matter of primary legislation for shadow accounts to be set up. That does not mean that it has not happened. It just means that I cannot find it in legislation.
There is nothing improper or unusual about the fact that the subsection, which the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, is pressing us to remove, uses as its effective date a date before Royal Assent. That is not unfair; it is accepted and welcomed by the distributors. I must repeat the point that it makes no difference to the amount of money which will be allocated to the new opportunities fund and NESTA over the licence period. Therefore, my answer to the third question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, is that, because it is neutral over time and since money has been put aside in shadow accounts, it will be necessary to have a higher percentage for a shorter time in order to obtain the same money. No more money will be required as a whole.
My answer to the noble Lord's first question—I am sorry to answer them in the wrong order, but that is the way it has worked out—is that if there were no subsection (9)—in other words, if the amendment were to be carried—there would not be a cash injection to
464
existing good causes for two reasons. First, the cash in the National Lottery Development Fund is held by the fund for the good causes and handed over only when they ask for it. It is underspent as regards the money that has so far been allocated to it. Secondly, since we put the proposal into our manifesto last April the good causes and the distributors have known that that would be the case. They have known the extent to which their expectations would be safeguarded, but at the same time they have known that additional money over and above the £9 billion which is now expected would be going to the new good cause. I am grateful for the noble Lord's general support for that new good cause.
I must continue to resist the suggestion that there is anything unfair or unreasonable about that proposition. By introducing the date of 14th October 1997, we are spreading the percentage over a longer period rather than having a much higher percentage coming into effect only after Royal Assent. The fundamental fact is that the total amount of money available to the good causes will be no different whether or not the amendment is carried, but the damage done by carrying the amendment would be the serious loss of momentum by the new opportunities fund and NESTA. It would take them longer to get themselves up and running and making grants, and we believe that that would be thoroughly undesirable.
I hope that on that basis, rather than repeating the arguments in detail, the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw his amendment. If not, I must ask your Lordships to reject it.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, we do not accept retrospection as the right procedure, but we recognise that we have come to the end of the Bill in your Lordships' House. I conclude by making one observation. We are witnessing the Government's determination to annex for their own purposes the money which was originally intended for arts and leisure activities in this county. Through the National Lottery, we created a unique opportunity to raise the standards of our civilisation, with benefits stretching well into the next century.
The National Lottery etc. Act of 1993 provided a unique opportunity to escape from the Treasury straitjacket. It enabled us to make modest preparations for the good life, which is, after all, the task of economics to make possible. Instead of seizing the moment and running with it, the Government now intend to encumber that civilising opportunity with their own largely utilitarian programmes. I am certain that the cultural life of our country will be the poorer for it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
An amendment (privilege) made.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. In doing so, I wish to thank all those who have taken part in the passage of the Bill in the House and behind the scenes. I am grateful in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky. and the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, for agreeing that the

465
Committee stage should be taken off the Floor in Grand Committee. I hope they will agree that the experience was not too painful. As debate continued we were able without difficulty to allocate a third day to the Committee. Therefore, there was no time constraint, explicit or implicit, on those debates. That was to the benefit of the Bill as a whole.
From the Conservative Benches, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Crickhowell and Lord Rees, and to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, for drawing attention to the Scottish and Welsh aspects of the Bill. I am pleased that it was possible to make clear to your Lordships that convergence between devolution legislation and other legislation passing through the House has been well planned and well resolved as between my department and the Scottish and Welsh offices. It was helpful to have that issue drawn to your Lordships' attention.
From the Liberal Democrat Benches, I am grateful in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, for their detailed, constructive interest in the Bill.
From my own Benches my noble friends Lord Howell and Lord Bassam were particularly helpful. From the Cross-Benches, the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, took an active and helpful part and I hope that we have gone some way to meet his concerns. The right reverend Prelates the Bishops of Oxford and Southwell raised the issue of under-age betting which gives them and us great concern. I am grateful to them for their contribution.
Obviously, I have left out some noble Lords, but I hope that I have recognised the contributions made in front of the camera, so to speak, during the passage of the Bill. Behind the camera there lies a highly efficient and responsive Bill team and I am grateful to them for their contributions. I wish them well as the Bill goes to the other place.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Data Protection Bill [H.L.]
3.28 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Basic interpretative provisions]:
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 9, at end insert—
("provided that this definition shall not he construed as applying to any operation performed only for the purpose of preparing the text of documents:).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, as I believe my noble friend the Minister may know, I have for some years been a lay member of the Professional Standards Committee of the General Council of the Bar. I have been alerted to a problem about the Bill by one of my fellow members, a barrister, who tells me that the present Bill omits a provision which existed in the
466
previous Data Protection Act. It is a provision the effect of which is that individuals using the computer as a word processor—virtually as a typewriter—do not have to register.
I gather the provision was originally intended to protect the position of those—and there must be many—who are in the process of making the transition from typewriters to computers. Letters to individuals processed in this way could therefore contain names, addresses and personal data. Of course, those data are capable of being stored if a computer is used, although very few people bother to do this. Under the new Bill, however, I gather that that provision is lost. Does that mean that someone using a computer in that way would be required to register? Is that omission an oversight or is there some particular purpose in it?
That has been brought to my attention by a barrister who uses a computer in that way. But it can affect a large number of people who are not barristers. Surely it is not intended to make people register who, a few years ago, would simply be using a typewriter. In my case, I have not yet made the transition to a computer but I use an electronic typewriter on which, if I wanted to, I could store text. If I switched to a computer with a much greater storage capacity, would that mean registration?
I must apologise to the Minister for not raising this issue in Committee. It is a matter which would have been better ventilated in Committee but, as he will know, people with concerns about legislation rarely tell you of them in time. Because I thought that my colleague had an issue which should be ventilated, I have tabled this amendment on Report. I beg to move.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I have tabled Amendment No. 2, which is grouped with this amendment, because in Committee, there was some difference between the Government and the registrar as regards the definition of manual records. However, I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, has tabled government Amendment No. 3, which I believe solves the problem. Therefore, it may be for the convenience of the House if I let the Minister speak first and thereafter I may or may not have to speak again.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Viscount. His Amendment No. 4 is also within this group and I am entirely in his hands as to when he wishes to speak to that amendment, if at all.
I accept entirely what my noble friend said. This matter has come to light, as sometimes happens, during the course of the Bill. I do not reproach her in the slightest way.
My noble friend is quite right to say that the 1984 Act provides an exclusion from the definition of processing for operations performed only for text preparation which may include simple word processing. Therefore, this amendment seeks to replicate that exclusion—in other words, the 1984 exclusion—in this Bill.
In the White Paper of July last year, we said that the directive does not allow a continuation of that exclusion. The definition of "processing" in the directive is much

467
wider than that in the Act and we are therefore obliged to follow it. There is no scope for us to make the definition in the Bill more restricted in the way my noble friend suggests.
We wonder whether there is a problem in practice. Text preparation in the form of word processing will be, to a considerable extent—possibly almost always—done as an adjustment to other processing which itself is likely to be caught by the Bill. Therefore, the application of the Bill to word processing is unlikely to bring any additional significant burdens.
However, I understand that my noble friend and others are concerned about additional burdens flowing from the notification requirements in the Bill. The same White Paper, to which I referred, said that the Government would exempt word processing from the notification arrangements if such an exemption proved necessary. I hope that on the basis of what I have said, my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
I deal now with the linked amendments referred to by the noble Viscount. As he rightly said, this matter flows from the discussions that we had in Committee. The noble Viscount's amendment seeks to leave out the word "particular" and we seek to leave out the word "particular" and to include the word "specific".
These two amendments are quite small. They tend to go in different directions. We believe that the noble Viscount's amendment would widen the scope of the definition quite considerably and bring in more manual records. As I said in Committee, I do not believe that his amendment would be welcome to all those who currently hold large collections of manual records. On the other hand, our amendment makes it clear, and is intended to make clear, that the definition is one of limited scope.
This is a difficult area. We believe that the definition as it stands in the Bill gives full and proper effect to the directive's requirements. We believe that the directive applies to a limited category of manual records. Essentially, they are those which meet three criteria: first, that they form part of a structured set; secondly, that the structuring is done by reference to individuals or criteria relating to individuals—for example, a unique personal identification number; and, thirdly, that the structuring is done in such a way that particular information about individuals is readily available. It is that final criterion that is the subject of the two amendments.
Our intentions are clear. We do not wish the definition to apply to miscellaneous collections of paper about individuals, even if the collections are assembled in a file with the individual's name or other unique identifer on the front, if specific data about the individual cannot be readily extracted from that collection.
An example might be a personnel file with my name on the front. Let us assume that the file contains every piece of paper or other document about me which the personnel section has collected over the course of my career; and those papers are held in the file in date order, with no means of readily identifying specific
468
information about me except by looking at every document. The Government's clear intention is that such files should not be caught. We want to catch only those records from which specific information about individuals can be readily extracted.
Let us take the case of a personnel file consisting only of information about my sickness record during my career. If that file has my name on the front and is part of a structured set, that file will be caught because the specific information about me, my sickness record, is readily available.
The Data Protection Registrar has said that she does not believe that the current definition of "relevant filing system", achieves the Government's intention of distinguishing between those two sorts of files. She suggests that an unindexed general personnel file is itself capable of counting as "particular information" about an individual. That information is particular only in the sense that it is limited to a rather unspecific category of personnel information. I can see that the word "particular" is ambiguous to the extent that it has the potential to yield that somewhat attenuated meaning. That is not what we intend.
We intend that "particular" information should mean "specific" information. That is what our amendment provides. The search for unambiguous language can sometimes be exhausting. I do not say that "specific" admits of no shades of meaning; it does. Information may be more or less specific in different degrees of detail. Very much may depend on context. But if there is any significant ambiguity in the introduction of "specific" into the definition of "relevant filing system", it is not capable of admitting into that definition the sort of general, unindexed personnel files that we have been talking about. All the information in those files may conceivably be thought "particular" but not "specific". "Specific" information is intended to mean and does mean distinct information within the file which can be distinguished from other information in the file and separately accessed. It means information of a distinct identity which sets it apart from the rest of the generality of personal information held. That is what our amendment intends to pin down. I hope that the noble Viscount will agree that our amendment is an improvement because we were looking for the same outcome.
We have paid careful attention to what the noble Viscount said and to what those in business and industry have expressed as concerns and we wish to address those concerns.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: My Lords, I oppose the noble Viscount's amendment and seek reassurance from Her Majesty's Government. I am concerned lest paper files which hold potentially damaging information about individuals without their knowledge may not be covered even by the government amendment. I wish it to be possible for those paper files to be accessed by the individuals concerned.
I do not wish to name any specific organisation, but there is one which I have in mind. I shall not name it but I shall define it. That organisation has been

469
investigated by the police. I am sorry to say that one particular major political party has used it on a regular basis in order to target political opponents.
Given that the police investigation disclosed, I believe, nothing improper, I had understood that that organisation was no longer targeting people who were political opponents of one political party. I am sorry to say that that is not so. There are people who may be shop stewards, who may belong to unions and who may disagree with management, whose personal files are still being held by that organisation and whose job prospects are still being harmed.
I met a person involved in such a case on Friday. His job prospects have been harmed during the past two weeks. That man has had his name on a file of that organisation for eight years, and he can give a record of jobs for which he has been blacklisted because of the situation. If he had access to that information, he could at least tell whether the information that the organisation holds on him, or purports to hold on him, is accurate. He could then raise the matter with the personnel officers of the companies to which he has applied for jobs. I am concerned about this; I want to make absolutely sure that ordinary working men and women do not have their job prospects harmed through invisible mechanisms which this Bill is surely designed to stop.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, before my noble friend responds, perhaps I might point out that, although this is the Report stage, we seem to be getting into a slight muddle because of this particular grouping. However, leaving that issue aside, I should very much like to comment on the Government's amendment, Amendment No. 3.
In Committee I declared an interest as the holder of a manual records set. As such, I think I am grateful to the Minister for the Government's amendment. As I understand it, any collection of paper documents which cannot be accessed by a particular subject would be covered by that amendment. However, I am not so sure as regards the position on a manual address list, where it involves purely the person's name, his address and a continuing set of order numbers.
Clearly, if one is given the order number over the telephone one has to look up the invoice and then refer to the reference. However, if one is given the name, one can then do the operation the other way round. I am not sure whether this is "specific". I gain the impression from what the Minister said that it almost certainly is not. Perhaps the Minister would care to confirm that either today or in writing before the Third Reading debate. I should be most grateful.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, before the noble Baroness replies, I should like to express my thanks to the Minister for Amendment No. 3, which I believe actually deals with all the questions that I put forward in Committee. Indeed, it also appears to deal largely with the content of Amendment No. 4, which is tabled in my name. Obviously I shall have to read carefully what the noble Lord said because his introduction was somewhat complicated. However, I have one brief
470
question. Does the result of his amendment mean that the Government and the registrar are now agreed on the definition of what are and what are not relevant manual records?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, as I believe I set out in my introduction, I cannot say that there is perfect agreement on the matter. There are shades of meaning here and much will depend on good sense in practice. We have taken on board the legitimate concerns raised by the noble Viscount and others, especially as regards large organisations—some of them governmental—which may have carried an intolerable burden over many years when dealing with manual records. I should like to research the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, and write to him extremely promptly on the matter.
I take note of the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, but I do not believe that they relate to the amendment for which I was contending. We are looking for a word which expresses the concept that we are all trying to find; namely, that one should have access to specific material which is readily accessible. I believe that what I have said deals with the questions put forward. I trust that I dealt earlier with the troubles which worried my noble friend Lady Turner of Camden.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his explanation. I had not appreciated that the directive gave the Government so little scope to do what was proposed in my amendment. However, I am grateful for my noble friend's assurance that it is not the Government's intention to impose additional burdens on individuals. On that basis, and with thanks again to my noble friend for his explanation, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 19, leave out ("particular") and insert ("specific").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
3.45 p.m.
Schedule 1 [The data protection principles]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 41, line 2, leave out ("in writing") and insert—

("(i) which is made or evidenced in writing, and

(ii)")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment relates to contracts between data processors and data controllers and picks up a point raised by my noble and learned friend the Solicitor-General when responding to Amendment No. 26 in Committee.
Paragraph 13 in Part II of Schedule 1 provides that processing by a data processor on behalf of a data controller shall not be regarded as complying with the seventh data protection principle, which relates to security measures to prevent unauthorised processing or

471
accidental loss, unless it is carried out under a contract which requires the processor to meet the necessary obligations. That is a requirement of the directive. The amendment responds to a point that was raised and allows that such a contract may be made or evidenced in writing. The explicit point of the director's requirement for writing is,
"for the purposes of keeping proof".
That may equally well be done by a contract made in writing or a contract evidenced in writing.
Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 are grouped with this amendment. They are tabled in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, and perhaps I might, therefore, allow him to take what course he thinks appropriate in that respect. In the meantime, I must point out that I have spoken only Amendment No. 5. I beg to move.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, it may be convenient for me to speak now to Amendments Nos. 6 and 7, which are included in this group. We find ourselves in a complicated area which deals with transfers of data between this and other countries, especially as regards the United States. I am grateful to the Minister for the meetings that have taken place between the Committee and Report stages. We do not seem to have reached a conclusion on the matter, although I believe that there are some pointers.
We are dealing with an extremely important area because it particularly affects American countries with operations in this country, or, indeed, British companies with substantial dealings in the USA. One of the difficulties is that the United States does not have a federal data protection Act of general application, although a number of states do have such protection. However, there is a wide range of codes of conduct and also contractual restrictions and individual business requirements which provide many of the protections provided for in the new data protection legislation. It was presumably for that reason that the registrar came out so firmly for allowing the broadening of paragraph 14 of Schedule 1.
There is a large number of cases where it is essential for American and British companies—for example, airline companies, pharmaceutical companies and software companies—to transmit massive amounts of data which are entirely appropriately protected in the United States. As one of the largest trading partners of the United Kingdom, the United States cannot be cut off from the flow of data from this country. If that were to happen, there would be serious disruption in day-to-day business and in the legitimate exchange of information.
Obviously, those whose data are transferred have to be protected. I read again, with care, the argument proposed by the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General in Committee that it can all be brought within Schedule 4. However, paragraph 2 of Schedule 4 deals only with the transfer of information between the data subject and the data controller which typically is not the subject of cross-border data flows. An American or British airline needs to be able to transfer information about bookings and seats, flight schedules and pilot and
472
cabin staff rotas. If it has to get permission from the data subject to make any transfer, it will become exceedingly difficult to do business in the United States.
At Committee stage the Minister also relied for his argument on paragraph 3 of Schedule 4. This initially seems to suggest that contracts between a data controller and a person other than the data subject can be enforced, but only if it is possible to prove that they were entered into at the request of the data subject or are in the interests of the data subject. Once again I believe this could impede any reasonable day-to-day handling of the kinds of business data that I have mentioned and would make it extraordinarily difficult for a British pharmaceutical company, for instance, to transfer information to obtain FDA permission for its drugs to be sold in the United States. The Minister did not point out in connection with paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 that contractual provisions are insufficient unless the contract is entered into at the request of the data subject or they are,
"in the interests of the data subject".
This provision would in reality make it possible to hold up any transfer of information to the United States indefinitely.
Paragraph 8 of Schedule 4 allows the transfer to be made on terms approved by the commissioner. If these were made in general terms it would be possible to handle some of the issues that I have raised. However, the effect of globalisation of trade means that the nature of contracts that are needed is constantly changing. American financial institutions have to transfer data constantly about accounts and various other matters to their head offices in New York or any other American city. British banks and financial institutions which hope to continue trading in the American market will also experience difficulties in having to clear every new arrangement—the nature of derivatives, for example, changes daily—with the registrar.
The principal problem with the Schedule 4 approach is that it assumes that countries such as the United States will have inadequate data protection in virtually every case, and that data can be transferred to the United States only in the "force majeure" situations listed in the schedule. My amendment recognised that contractual protections may be one factor of many listed in Schedule 1 in determining that in appropriate cases data transferred to the United States may have the adequate protections that the law requires.
This is a complicated area. I have mentioned the United States because institutions in this country, particularly financial institutions, do so much business with that country. However, the matter could apply equally to other countries. I moved this amendment in Committee. While we have made progress in some of the discussions which have taken place as regards explaining the problem, I do not think we have made any progress in finding an answer. That is why I have spoken to this amendment again today. I look forward to the Minister's reply to determine whether he can help me in this difficulty.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful for the exposition which has been given. I was most pleased to hear that the discussions which have taken place with officials have been helpful if not entirely productive of an outcome that everyone can accept. The proposition which is being put is that contracts in appropriate cases should be able to make a contribution to a finding of adequacy for the purposes of Schedule 1. We believe that that is already the case as the Bill is drafted. Paragraph 14 of Part II of Schedule 1 states that,
"An adequate level of protection is one which is adequate in all the circumstances of the case".
I emphasise that. It is the full situation in individual cases—both legal and practical—which must be considered. The ensuing list of matters in paragraph 14 is not exhaustive. If the person to whom data are exported is under relevant contractual obligations and the country or territory in question is one with an effective contractual enforcement system, that may well contribute to a finding of adequacy.
There may be, for instance, a relevant code of conduct in force in the territory in question which the recipient of the data is contractually bound to comply with. The fact of that contractual obligation is clearly relevant to the question of whether the overall level of protection offered by that territory is,
"adequate in all the circumstances",
as paragraph 14 requires. Similar considerations would of course apply vis-à-vis security measures, to which this amendment specifically relates.
We are not persuaded that there is a gap in the scheme which this amendment could usefully fill. The list of mandatory considerations is designed to highlight the most important issues. It follows clearly the words of Article 25.2 of the directive. However, other factors will be relevant. That is the reason for the phrase,
"all the circumstances of the case".
There is no end to the circumstances which could be listed. We have highlighted the major factors indicated by the directive.
The noble Viscount said that this was a difficult area. We understand that. I shall reflect further on what the noble Viscount has said today. I cannot accept his amendment today but we shall look carefully at the points he has raised this afternoon. I hope that in respect of Amendment No. 6 the noble Viscount will accept those comments and will not press the amendment.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for those comments. I shall not press the amendment, but this is a matter that we must try to make clear before the Third Reading of the Bill.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved]
Schedule 3 [Conditions relevant for purposes of the first principle: processing of sensitive personal data]:
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
Lord Dholakia Lord Dholakia moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 43, line 21, at end insert—
(" . The processing is—

(a) undertaken only for the purpose of promoting, ensuring or monitoring equality of opportunity or treatment between persons of different racial or ethnic origins, and

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

The noble Lord said: My Lords, let me first declare an interest in this amendment. At one time I worked at the Commission for Racial Equality and made my maiden speech in this House on the subject of equal opportunity in a debate proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, some time ago. It should therefore come as no surprise to your Lordships' House that I move the amendment in my name on the Marshalled List.
I express my concern and also the concern of the Commission for Racial Equality, which is a body set up by the Government to promote equality of opportunity and good relations among our various communities. It has the full backing of the Home Office in this important task. Equal opportunity has no meaning unless this process is adequately monitored. Needless to say the commission is concerned about the impact of the Data Protection Bill on ethnic monitoring. I believe the amendment I propose will address this deficiency.
The Data Protection Bill as drafted imposes a general prohibition on the processing of sensitive personal data, which includes data on racial and ethnic origin. This causes a major problem. The recording or analysis of the ethnic origins of employees or service users will not be lawful unless one or more of a number of specified conditions set out in Schedule 3 to the Bill are met or unless the purpose is one within any of Clauses 27, 28 or 31. Let me remind your Lordships that these relate to national security, prevention and detection of crime, assessment or collection of taxes etc.
The conditions in Schedule 3 do not include any reference to processing for the purpose of ethnic monitoring and none can be reasonably interpreted as permitting it. The Bill in its present form will therefore permit ethnic monitoring by employers and service providers only if data subjects give their explicit consent as stated in paragraph 1 of Schedule 3.
Paragraph 9 of Schedule 3 confers on the Secretary of State a general power to stipulate by order further conditions in which sensitive personal data may be processed. I am well aware from my discussions with the Commission for Racial Equality that it has been in touch both with the Home Secretary and the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. The Minister has indicated that it is the Government's intention to use the power in paragraph 9 of Schedule 3 to permit ethnic monitoring. Let me say straight away that this approach is not equivalent to the inclusion of such an exception in primary legislation. The Minister must therefore accept that this is highly damaging to the work of the Commission for Racial Equality and others working to promote ethnic monitoring.
The amendment, which has the support of my noble friend Lady Nicholson, has the clear objective of including in the Bill a specific exception relating to

475
ethnic monitoring. It will make clear to all employers and service providers that the Data Protection Bill will permit ethnic monitoring. I believe that that is crucial.
It has been a hard struggle to get where we are on the important subject of ethnic monitoring. The uncertainty as to what the law will permit will increase reluctance and may lead some to abandon the issue altogether. I do not believe that the Government's explicit commitment to equality of opportunity in their manifesto ever envisaged the placing of such a restriction.
Let me take the example of the CBI's equal opportunities forum. It shares the view that the Bill should be amended. It shares the view that this provision should be made evident on the face of the Bill rather than being dealt with in subordinate legislation. The TUC agrees that the Bill needs amendment for this purpose. If the Bill is not amended, the message will be clear. It will suggest that racial equality and the means of achieving it are not a priority. It strikes at the heart of all government policies because they frequently refer to the centrality of equal opportunity to their work.
In all the years that I have known the Minister I have never doubted his total commitment to racial equality and the means of achieving it. I believe that, on reflection, he will accept that the amendment gives weight to the CRE's code of practice issued under Section 47 of the Race Relations Act. This is vital to the promotion of the objectives of all those who work to build a decent society free from any improper discrimination. Ethnic monitoring should be in the mainstream of legislation rather than delegated to its margins. If the Government decline to accept this reasonable amendment, they risk being seen as failing to take positive action to promote equal opportunity when there is an easy and available opportunity to do so. The amendment has all the necessary safeguards for the data subject. I commend it to your Lordships.
4 p.m.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: My Lords, I support the excellent amendment of my noble colleague and urge the Minister to support it or to investigate the subject most seriously. As my noble friend so rightly says, ethnic monitoring should be in the mainstream and forefront of the Government's policies. I feel confident that with this Government it is. I remind the Minister that the last government opposed this legislation. The new Government give matters such as ethnic monitoring the importance that I believe is obligatory in a multicultural and multifaith society.
I also draw the Minister's attention to the second part of the amendment. It provides carefully for the rights of subjects, ensuring that that part of the amendment is also taken into account. It is of vital importance that employers should not misuse this information if, as we hope, our amendment, or some provision close to our amendment, is placed on the face of the Bill.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Baroness puts forward the most powerful of arguments; namely, that the last government opposed the provision. It is deeply seductive!
476
I sympathise and understand, I hope, the reasoning underlying the speeches of the noble Lord and noble Baroness. As they rightly say, ethnic monitoring is not on the face of the Bill. That is partly because our Schedule 3 follows closely the relevant provisions in Article 8 of the Data Protection Directive which does not mention ethnic monitoring.
Originally we thought that we would go by way of order under paragraph 9 of Schedule 3. We could have had the necessary measure of detail and flexibility so that we captured all necessary angles properly. That would have given us the benefit, in due time, of easier amendment power, because this Bill will be an Act which has to last for a long time and needs to be sufficiently flexible.
I understand the persuasive force of the noble Lord's argument. The Home Secretary had a meeting with Sir Herman Ouseley recently. I had the benefit of further conversations with him with officials as recently as Friday. We have said throughout that we are perfectly willing to have an open mind. I hope that I can demonstrate that on this occasion by saying that the Government are content in principle for the Bill to be amended along the lines suggested.
While paragraph (b) is well intentioned, we believe that it may not hit the target, but that is a matter of drafting, not of principle. Therefore we do not think that the amendment is perfect. I do not think that even the parental joy of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, would necessarily pretend that his offspring was perfect. We shall put matters in hand for the Government to bring forward their own amendment to deal with the point. I accept that it is in many ways a point of principle and an extremely important indicator of how seriously the Government deal with these matters. They are matters of great sensitivity but equally of great principled importance.
We shall try to do that by Third Reading. We are very tight on time. I think that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness know how extremely stretched officials are at present because they have been in continuing discussions, not only on drafting but also other matters, with noble Lords who are interested. We shall do our very best. It is possible that we shall not be ready for Third Reading. If we are not ready for Third Reading in this House, we shall be looking to bring forward an amendment in another place.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I might briefly interject. The noble Baroness says that the previous government were against her amendment. I find that rather surprising. It was the previous government who negotiated the directive with Europe in the first place. If it had not been for our part in that, we would not have a Data Protection Bill now.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not wish to intrude into private grief.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. Once in a while when amendments of this nature are accepted it restores one's faith in this House.

477
Perhaps I may press the noble Lord a little further about the timescale so that we are aware of the progress being made.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I can do no more than say that we hope to have the provision ready for Third Reading. However, Third Reading is almost upon us. If it is humanly possible to achieve a properly workable amendment, we shall do so before the Bill leaves your Lordships' House. If not, I undertake that the measure will be brought forward in another place so that it will form part of the Bill in due time.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 5 [The Data Protection Commissioner and the Data Protection Tribunal]:
The Solicitor-General (Lord Falconer of Thoroton)The Solicitor-General (Lord Falconer of Thoroton) moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 46, line 13, after ("Act") insert ("or section 158 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in this group, I beg to move Amendment No. 9, and speak to Amendments Nos. 12, 13, 16 and 70. This set of government amendments effectively brings the rights which data subjects have under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 to obtain access to their data under the same roof as those of the Bill.
As it presently stands, Clause 8(8) of the Bill takes a first step towards streamlining the two access rights. It imposes an order of priority on unspecific access requests. But it leaves the dual regime intact; namely, data protection and consumer credit. As such, it can be seen only as an interim measure. The new government amendments complete the task. They replace the present Clause 8(8) with a unitary system of access under the Bill. They therefore ensure that all requests for general access have the benefit of the more comprehensive rights and remedies provided by the Bill.
But we have gone a step further. These amendments introduce in Clause 7 of the Bill a new right of access to specific data. Your Lordships will be aware that the subject access right under the Bill is a right of access to the generality of data held. It is not a right to insist on partial access. But the new amendments will now provide that a data subject making a subject access request to a credit reference agency may specify that his request is limited to personal data consisting of information as to his financial standing. This new limited right is supported by representatives of consumer bodies, trading standards authorities and the credit reference agencies themselves. Very often, this is the only information in which data subjects are interested in this context. We intend to use the powers in Clause 7 to make regulations to prescribe terms for the new limited access rights which are more favourable to consumers than the general subject access conditions may be. The new right is intended to be a cheap and fast means of acquiring access to the key financial information held by credit reference agencies.
We think, therefore, that we have given data subjects the best of both worlds. General access rights are given the benefit of the Bill's more extensive protections. And the new, optional, limited right preserves the advantages of speed and cheapness from the 1974 Act.
Those of your Lordships with an eye for detail will note that we have as a consequence removed rights of access to personal data from the scope of the 1974 Act. We have left other access rights (for partnerships and unincorporated bodies) under that Act intact. They are not the business of this particular Bill.
We have also preserved the rights of individuals who consider their consumer credit files to be incorrect, which are found in Section 159 of the 1974 Act. But where those rights relate to personal data, we have provided for their enforcement to be the responsibility of the data protection commissioner rather than, as now, of the Director General of Fair Trading. This is also part of the policy of bringing all of the 1974 Act's rights in respect of personal data into the Bill's fold. The rights in Section 159 are of course without prejudice to data subjects' rights under Clause 12 of the Bill, and the fourth data protection principle, in respect of inaccurate data.
These amendments therefore represent a clear shift of emphasis. That brings with it an increase in the commissioner's responsibilities. We are looking into the matter of an appropriate transfer of resources accordingly. I hope your Lordships will be able to welcome these amendments as an improvement to both data protection and consumer credit law.
Perhaps I may use this opportunity to mention a subject not specifically dealt with by this group of amendments; namely, enforced subject access. At Second Reading, I mentioned two important omissions from the Bill. One was the transitional provisions in relation to which the Government have now brought forward amendments to be discussed later in the course of Report stage. The second was provisions to meet the Government's commitment to outlaw the practice of enforced subject access.
I very much regret that the Government have still not yet been able to bring proposals on that second matter before this House. It is proving to be an extremely difficult issue. We still, however, intend to do something about the problem and will try to bring forward proposals at Third Reading. If we cannot manage to do so, we shall be looking to return to the matter in another place.
I now turn to Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 in this grouping. These are technical amendments. They ensure consistency in the terminology used within Clause 7. That is what the directive says. Subsection (1)(c) refers to the "communication" of information. Subsection (5), which relates to the same information, inadvertently uses the verb "supply", which is the language of the 1984 Act. These amendments substitute "communicate" for "supply" in subsection (5).
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, proposed an amendment to Clause 7(1)(c) to add the words, "or made available", to the word "communicated". The noble Lord thought that the addition of "or made

479
available" would deal with the situation where people were given the opportunity to find for themselves information that it might be wearisome for somebody else to find. We said that we did not believe that "communicated" constrained the means by which information was provided. Because of what the noble Lord said, we consulted parliamentary counsel as to whether our view was correct. She confirmed that view. Under Clause 8(2) the controller, by agreement with the subject, may make information available to the data subject otherwise than by providing him with a copy. We therefore thought that the assurances we gave to the noble Lord were met, and hoped that by checking with parliamentary counsel we could give him further reassurance as to the concerns he raised in Committee.
Amendment No. 14 is, again, a rather technical amendment. It changes the definition of "relevant day" in Clause 7. Noble Lords may recall that we amended this definition in Committee to improve its drafting. I am afraid that even with those improvements, the definition as it stands is not quite right.
The Bill sets a time period within which data controllers must respond to subject access requests. As the Bill stands, the period may in some cases not start until the data controller has also obtained the consent of any third party who can be identified from the information in question. This could have the effect of delaying a data subject's access to the rest of this information unnecessarily. That is not what we want. The amendment, read with the existing Clause 7(5), addresses the point.
There is one other amendment in this group standing in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor. Subject to the views of other noble Lords, I thought that I would leave the noble Viscount to develop that amendment. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord has indicated, a number of these amendments bring an individual's rights of access to his credit reference agency files under the data protection regime. On the surface there is nothing wrong with that, albeit that the access has been satisfactorily regulated for 25 years under the Consumer Credit Act—which, incidentally, gave the first subject access rights available in the UK.
This is a major change being introduced at short notice, to all intents and purposes without consultation with the consumer credit industry. The potential knock-on effects are considerable. It could be argued that the primary function of the Consumer Credit Act is to ensure responsible lending, whereas the primary function of the Data Protection Act is to ensure confidentiality. The tension between those two very laudable aims has already led to enforcement action from the Data Protection Registrar in this area. The Data Protection Tribunal, seeking to balance the need for both responsible lending and confidentiality, gave a ruling. When lenders check the existing commitments of an applicant for a loan, credit reference agencies supply information about members of the applicant's family at
480
the same address to avoid financial over-commitment in a family. The Director General of Fair Trading adjudged that an individual searching his or her credit reference agency file should be given all the information with which a lender might be supplied. Thus, so-called "third party" information may be included in an individual's file. That is a relatively small price to pay to avoid over-indebtedness and fraud.
However, Amendments Nos. 12 and 16—relating to the effective removal of subsection (8) of Clause 10—run against the grain of that ruling.
The provisions relating to disclosure in the current Data Protection Act and this Bill would appear to have two possible effects on the present situation. Either a data subject would not see all the information that might be given to a lender; or the credit industry would effectively no longer be able to see information about other persons with the same surname at the same address as the applicant. The consequences of either scenario would be very grave for the industry. The Bill is all about striking the right balance. While the credit reference industry may not be particularly popular, it is nonetheless an important contributor to personal and national prosperity. These amendments put it, and the safeguards to ensure its continuing viability and responsibility, at risk.
I should like to take this opportunity to make a more general point, which may become something of a refrain as we progress through the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, began his contribution to the Grand Committee with a mild chiding:
"I would gently ask that amendments are put down in a reasonable time".—[Official Report, 23/2/98: col. CWH 4.]
I do not wish to carp, but the Government tabled a number of amendments on Thursday and Friday of last week which, taken in toto, could fundamentally alter the balance of the Bill to date. Moreover, the substance of many of them concerns matters which have not been widely trailed and which, as a result, were not well rehearsed in Grand Committee. The amendments to which I have referred are a case in point. I hope, therefore, that the Government will give careful consideration to whether it is appropriate to press ahead with these amendments and others at this stage. In the circumstances, it might be more appropriate to think in terms of bringing them back at Third Reading when we have had the opportunity to reflect more adequately on their likely impact and effect.
Turning to Amendment No. 70, which is also in this grouping, I have considerable reservations about this new clause. As the noble and learned Lord explained, the amendment to Section 158(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 substitutes a new meaning to the defined expression "the consumer" by extending it to partnerships and unincorporated bodies. Whatever the merits of so doing in a data protection sense, this revision is not repeated by way of amendment to the provisions of Section 158(5), which still talks about files in relation to an individual, an expression which will be removed from Section 158(1)(a). This is compounded by the amendment now proposed to Section 159(1), which will remove the expression "consumer" and substitute the expressions "individual" and "objector",

481
the latter being defined in relation to the former—that is, individuals—but no longer being relevant to the definition of "consumer" in Section 158(5). These amendments show an alarming lack of clarity and consistency of thought. As drafted, they are highly likely to create a muddle and lead to inconsistencies of interpretation.
Equally disturbing is the amendment proposed in relation to the new subsection (8)(b) to Clause 159. This appears to have the effect of giving the data protection commissioner exclusive jurisdiction in relation to correction of information relating to individuals—that is to say, objectors other than partnerships or other unincorporated bodies or persons. I contend that such exclusivity runs against the grain of the Bill's intent to strike an adequate and appropriate balance in data protection terms. Perhaps inevitably, I find myself repeating my counsel to the noble and learned Lord that here again is an instance where our interests might best be served if we can return to the matter at Third Reading, particularly bearing in mind the apparent absence of any proper and/or effective consultation with credit reference agencies on these matters.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, at this stage I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General for referring to my earlier amendment at Committee stage with regard to the word "communicated" and for having taken the matter further. I fully accept what the noble and learned Lord says.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I had been going to suggest that my Amendment No. 15 be degrouped from this group of amendments, as it concerns a different subject. However, being a helpful kind of person, I will speak to it now in order to give the Minister a chance to think about how he will respond to my noble friend.
At Committee stage I moved an amendment to delete "trade secret" and insert "intellectual property". The noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General said:
"that is a very legalistic way of dealing with the issue".—[Official Report, 23/2/98; col. CWH 44.]
I was not entirely sure whether, from a lawyer, that was a compliment or a criticism. However, being a modest person, I took it as a criticism and have therefore come up with a new amendment to insert "or intellectual property" and leave in "trade secret".
I am told, on wise and learned advice, that the law of trade secrets and confidential information is very much a subset of general intellectual property law. As I understand it, the noble and learned Lord said at Committee stage that that was not necessarily the case and that "trade secret" could cover the matter. My advice is that there is a different view, which is shared by industry. I believe there are many who believe that there should be a specific provision allowing information involving intellectual property in addition to trade secrets—if indeed it is additional, which the noble and learned Lord does not yet agree, though I hope he will do so—to be exempt from the data subject's right to be informed of the logic involved in
482
certain automated decision-making. As I have indicated, this is consistent with paragraph 41 of the directive, which states that this right,
"must not adversely affect trade secrets or intellectual property".
My amendment is thus taken straight from the directive.
The Minister said that "trade secret" includes intellectual property. I accept that there seems to be a difference of legal advice on this matter. However, I think it would be unwise if we allowed that to be the case. Including my words in the Bill would remove any question about the matter. I therefore hope that the noble and learned Lord will be able to accept my amendment.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, perhaps I may deal first with the points raised by the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, relating to the Consumer Credit Act aspects of the amendments proposed. I believe he was right to point out that these amendments were only put down last Thursday. There has therefore perhaps not been sufficient time for noble Lords to consider them as they would have liked. Many of the points made by the noble Earl merit further consideration.
He is wrong to say that credit reference agencies were not consulted before these proposals were put down; they were. The way forward seems to me to be that the amendments should proceed at this stage but arrangements should be made for the noble Earl and those whom he thinks appropriate to meet with officials from the department of my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn so that the matters which he raises, which were well put and have considerable importance, can be properly discussed and the matter returned to at Third Reading if that proves necessary following those discussions. I hope that that deals with the legitimate concerns that the noble Earl raised.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, there is a procedural difficulty here, is there not? This is Report stage; the next stage will be Third Reading, when amendments are prohibited if the matter has been agreed to at a previous stage, which will be the case under the arrangements proposed by the noble and learned Lord. The only way I can see out of this difficulty is that, should the noble and learned Lord advise that amendments are necessary, those amendments would have to be made in another place and return to your Lordships' House as amendments to the Bill as passed here. I do not consider that a very satisfactory arrangement. My noble friend certainly has a point.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am advised that it is possible at Third Reading to make amendments even on matters which have been agreed to, so I do not believe that the procedural point to which the noble Lord refers exists. In any event, after discussion with the noble Earl, if there are matters that the Government consider should be amended, we can obviously bring forward amendments. I do not believe that the procedural difficulty is as described and is a reason for not pursuing the eminently sensible course that I have proposed.

483
I turn to the amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor. He suggested that it was a new amendment. Obviously so many amendments were tabled in Committee that he forgot this one. In fact, he tabled a similar amendment in Committee.
I listened carefully to his further explanation of why it is necessary to insert a reference to "intellectual property" to sit alongside the reference to "trade secrets". Despite the genuinely persuasive way he put it, I remain firmly of the view that the addition is both unnecessary and inappropriate.
The noble Viscount referred to Recital 41 of the directive, which says that the right to information about the logic involved in automatic processing of personal data,
"must not adversely affect trade secrets or intellectual property and in particular the copyright protecting the software".
Recital 41 is a comment on the third indent of Article 12(a) of the directive. Although Article 12(a) is in general terms, it allows the provision of information about the logic involved in automatic processing to be confined to fully automated decisions of the kind dealt with in Clause 13 of the Bill. Clause 7(l)(d) takes that more limited option. So we are already narrowing right down the scope for the provision of information about the logic underlying automated processing as far as the directive allows us.
I should say in the first place that Recital 41 refers in particular to the "copyright protecting the software." That has no application to the limited right conferred by Clause 7(1)(d). That right is limited to information about the logic involved in decision taking. That does not include details of the software which may be instrumental in the application of the logic to the decision-taking process itself.
In the context of the limited right established by Clause 7(1)(d), Clause 8(5) gives full effect to the purpose of Recital 41. Clause 8(5) limits the right provided by Clause 7(1)(d). Clause 7(1)(d) creates a right to be given information by a data controller. It confers no rights whatever to obtain copies of anything that the data controller has. Nor does it confer any new rights on the data subject to use the information he receives. It simply requires the data controller to produce some description of the factors and weightings involved in the decision taking. It therefore leaves intact the law of copyright and other issues of intellectual property. As Recital 41 says, the right we have created does not adversely affect intellectual property rights per se.
In effect, Clause 7(l)(d) is giving the right to be told the information behind the logic of the decision-taking process. All it gives is a right to information, not to copies of anything, and therefore all that one is concerned about is trade secrets.
The only legitimate concern that data controllers can have about this right is that it could force them to disclose information which is not generally known and which has some commercial or other value by virtue of that fact. That is what we understand to be the essence of a "trade secret" whether or not that information is in copyright form or the subject of other intellectual
484
property rights. It is information which needs protection from disclosure. Clause 8(5) gives it that protection from the requirement to disclose in accordance with Clause 7(1).
"Trade secret" is a term with a clear pedigree in statutory use and, as I observed in Grand Committee, in case law. If the House wishes, I can recite a rather long list of statutes in which the term is used. I suspect that that might weary the House. I would, though, just mention Section 39 of the Radioactive Substances Act 1993. That imposes a requirement to give public access to certain documents, except in so far as the disclosure of any such document would involve the disclosure of, for example, a trade secret. The House will see the similarity between that provision and Clause 8(5) in this Bill.
We have had the same anxieties as the noble Viscount, Lord Astor. We carefully considered the matter but, having regard to the fact that the right is only to information and the only danger in relation to that is disclosure of trade secrets, we believe that the route that we have adopted provides adequate protection and that the words, "or intellectual property", which the noble Viscount suggests should be put in, would simply confuse the matter and be inappropriate in the circumstances.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord concludes his response on Amendment No. 15, will he reassert that the reason for not supporting that amendment is that the intellectual property to which the noble Viscount is inadvertently referring is the software, which is fully protected already by the copyright Act 1988 and its subsequent amendments? Am I correct in that?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that intervention. I am sure that the noble Viscount had that in mind in part, although I suspect that he had concerns about other intellectual property rights apart from copyright.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, is absolutely right. There is no problem about the copyright of software, for the reasons I indicated, nor about any other legal right apart from trade secrets. That is specifically dealt with in the context of the Act. I am sorry that it was such a lengthy explanation. I hope that it gives the noble Viscount some comfort, in the light of which he will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, perhaps I can ask for clarification. Can the Minister say whether there is any other statute of which he is aware, where "intellectual property" is used as a defined term of art?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am not aware of such a statute, though there may be one. Perhaps I can make inquiries and write to the noble Lord if I find a statute where that phrase is used.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, if the term "intellectual property" were to go on the face of the Bill, it could create a precedent.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it may well do. I am obliged to the noble Lord for raising the point.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord will be aware that we are bound by our signature to the Berne Convention and to WIPO as well, which I imagine feed into statutory legislation somehow, though I do not know precisely how.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, that is correct. I believe I had concluded my remarks.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord said and as I remarked earlier, I moved this amendment at Committee stage. I took note of what the noble and learned Lord said then, which is the reason I came back to it. There is an anxiety about what is and what is not a "trade secret" and how intellectual property and copyright fall under it. I shall certainly study carefully what the noble and learned Lord said in his response and consider whether this is an area to which we will need to return on Third Reading.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down and with apologies for returning to the subject of credit reference agencies, perhaps I can say that I am grateful for his generous offer. However, in conceding that I raised one or two legitimate concerns, I am bound to ask whether the amendments to which I spoke, if they are accepted today, are amendable subsequently in a way which will address my concerns. Does the noble and learned Lord have any suggestion as to how, procedurally, he may seek to resolve that difficulty?
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Brougham and Vaux): My Lords, perhaps your Lordships will permit me to put the House in order. We will move on from Amendment No. 9 to Amendment No. 10, at which time the noble and learned Lord will be able to speak again. The Question is that Amendment No. 9 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say "Content"; to the contrary "Not-Content". The Contents have it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 [Right of access to personal data]:
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 5, line 39, leave out ("supplying") and insert ("communicating").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have formally spoken to this amendment. The standing order rules state that,
"The principal purposes of amendments on Third Reading arc to clarify any remaining uncertainties, to improve the drafting and to enable the Government to fulfil undertakings given at earlier stages of the bill. It is undesirable that an issue which has been fully debated and decided upon at a previous stage of a bill should be re-opened by an amendment on Third Reading".
I should have thought that that is more than enough to deal with the procedural difficulties.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am grateful for that clarification. Nonetheless, should a Member of your Lordships' House wish to remove part or all of one of the amendments proposed by the noble and learned Lord, he could not do so.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the relevant words seem to me to be:
"It is undesirable that an issue which has been fully debated and decided upon at a previous stage of a bill should be re-opened by an amendment on Third Reading".
One can simply read this debate and see where we stand in relation to Third Reading. Speaking for myself, I should have thought that, procedurally, there is no bar.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, with the leave of the House, does the noble and learned Lord therefore agree with me that these subjects are not being fully debated now?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the amendments were tabled on Thursday of last week and the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, has raised certain points that need further discussion. If those cannot be resolved, speaking for myself—though it is not a matter for me, it is a matter for the House—there could then be a proper debate on those issues that have not been fully aired during the course of this debate. At the moment, and speaking from a position of immense lack of experience, it does not seem to me that it gives rise to procedural difficulties, because the detail of what the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, has said has not been fully debated today.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, nothing has been decided—I have not been here the whole time but I am interested in this matter—and neither has anything been fully debated. So how, procedurally, is the House put in balk for Third Reading? Nothing has been decided except a sensible meeting to seek to decide.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I entirely understand what has been said. In formal terms, the amendments will go though at this stage and then we will come back to them at Third Reading, when there can be, as I understand it, such necessary full debate on those matters not fully ventilated at this stage.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendments Nos. 11 to 14:
Page 5, line 40, leave out ("supplied") and insert ("communicated").
Page 6, line 4, at end insert—
("(6A) An individual making a request under this section to a credit reference agency may specify that his request is limited to personal data consisting of information as to his financial standing.").
Page 6, line 12, at end insert—
(""credit reference agency" has the same meaning as in the Consumer Credit Act 1974;").
Page 6, line 24, leave out from ("has") to end of line 29 and insert ("both the required fee and the information referred to in subsection (3)").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 8 [Provisions supplementary to section 7]:
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 7, line 24, leave out subsection (8).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.

Maze Prison
4.42 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made by my honourable friend the Minister in another place. The Statement is as follows:
"Madam Speaker, may I say at the outset how much I regret the death of Mr. David Keys in the Maze Prison during the weekend. The Northern Ireland Prison Service owes a duty of care to all prisoners, regardless of what they have done or may have done, and any death in custody is a matter of deep distress to prison staff.
"The circumstances of this case are now the subject of a murder investigation and I must choose my words with care. David Oliver Keys was found dead in his cell in C wing of FI Block 6 at approximately 8.30 a.m. on Sunday 15th March 1998 during the routine morning cell check. The body was found hanging with a ligature around the neck and both wrists slashed. He was pronounced dead at 9.05 a.m. The cause of death seemed to be suicide. The RUC and the coroner's office were notified, and the prisoners were moved out of C wing. During the course of the day the police and a pathologist visited the scene. Both expressed some concern that the cause of death might not be suicide. At 1700 hours the body was removed for a post mortem, the results of which led the RUC to launch a murder inquiry yesterday evening.
"Following his arrest and questioning by the RUC, Mr. Keys was remanded in custody on 11th March 1998 and was committed to Her Majesty's prison Maghaberry. He asked for, and was given, a form to complete seeking a transfer to the wings of HMP Maze occupied by the Loyalist Volunteer Force. This form is intended to ensure that the applicant is quite clear about the faction with which he wishes to be housed and about the nature of the regime which operates in Her Majesty's prison the Maze. Mr. Keys signed and dated this form on 11th March. In accordance with normal practice, the LVF prisoners were asked to confirm that Mr. Keys was acceptable to them. They said he was. No information was available to the prison service which suggested that
488
Mr. Keys was in any way at risk from this faction. Accordingly, he transferred to the LVF wings of Her Majesty's prison the Maze on 1lth March.
"The Maze Prison contains more than 400 convicted terrorists and a further 100 or so remanded in custody in connection with scheduled offences. Some 150 prisoners have been convicted of murder or attempted murder. They are segregated according to faction, and two of the five factions have not declared ceasefires. The factions have considerable political and paramilitary influence, and they are supervised by locally recruited staff. Any one of these factors would, by itself, constitute a challenge to security and control. Combined, they present the Northern Ireland Prison Service with a unique set of circumstances not replicated elsewhere.
"Over the past year there have been a series of incidents which have rightly given rise to concern about the effectiveness of the establishment. Each has been made the subject of an inquiry, and substantial improvements in security have been made, under the guidance of a new managerial team.
"The escape and the murder of a prisoner in December 1997 are the subject of both police investigations and an inquiry by Martin Narey of Her Majesty's Prison Service. He is independent of the Northern Ireland Prison Service. I have received his report and it will be made public shortly. In addition, the Secretary of State has asked Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons, Sir David Ramsbotham, to carry out a full inspection of the prison. This will begin next Monday, and his report will be published.
"In the light of all these investigations, it would not be appropriate for me to say more today about the nature and performance of Her Majesty's prison the Maze. I can assure honourable Members, however, that Ministers will be treating the conclusions and recommendations with the utmost seriousness."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.48 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. She will understand, I am sure, the very serious concern that this latest incident has aroused in this House and indeed throughout the country. In the past week we have seen the release of the terrorist, Miss McAliskey, we have seen Sinn Fein allowed back into the peace talks, Gerry Adams entertained in Downing Street after two IRA murders and now we have the murder of Mr. David Keys by fellow prisoners. It was carried out in a way that implies much forward planning and a substantial time in its perpetration, and it follows close on the heels of the shooting of the convicted terrorist, Billy Wright, last December.
After Mr. Wright's murder, the prisons Minister in another place, Mr. Ingram, gave an assurance that security at the Maze would be tightened up and new measures put in place to ensure that such incidents could not happen again. But that does not seem to be the case. I do not expect the noble Baroness to go into the details of security measures at the Maze, but can she inform

489
us whether security was tightened up after the Wright murder? Were all the new measures envisaged at the time put into place and were they in operation at the time of Mr. Keys' murder? Can the noble Baroness say when the report will be published?
4.50 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for making the Statement to this House which has been made in another place. I am sure that the House will acknowledge that it is a very serious situation in the Maze Prison. I do not want to cast my net as wide as the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, and make it part of a pattern because, generally, the prospects for a peaceful settlement in Northern Ireland are brighter than they have been for a long time.
However, when one looks at the situation in the Maze and the Statement that we have been given, I am sure that the Government will accept that we have now had a series of incidents over the past 10 months which must raise great doubts about the viability of the prison as a whole. We had an attempted IRA mass escape last May; there was the escape of an IRA double murderer dressed as a woman, last December; more recently, there was the murder of Billy Wright of the Loyalist Volunteer Force by the INLA, and now we have the apparent murder of a prisoner in his cell. Each of these incidents is now matched by its own investigation or inquiry. Were it not so serious, I might be inclined to say that at this rate there will be more inquiries about the Maze Prison than prisoners there.
We have got to the point where the Government, in contemplating what to do, have to ask themselves some serious questions about the prison. Perhaps I may ask them. First, the Statement refers to factional segregation. Are the Government satisfied with the underlying arrangements and rules at the Maze Prison which seem to have grown from the point when they were originally instituted by the Conservative government to where factional segregation has become factional control, where the prisoners, within those factions, are effectively guarding themselves? Secondly, when will the outgoing governor, who, I know, is staying on temporarily, be replaced? This is surely the time when there is a need for a new appointment and a firm hand in the Maze Prison.
Finally, I had intended to ask the Government at this point for a fully independent inquiry, but I believe the fact that Sir David Ramsbotham has been asked to look at the prison as a whole will reassure Members of this House, given his very fine, independent record. However, what is his remit? The Statement simply says that he is to carry out a full inspection of the prison. No doubt, that is what inspectors of prisons do. We must now be reassured that his remit is wide enough to include the way in which the system at the Maze Prison operates as a whole. I do not believe that this is the time for excitable calls for resignations because I do not believe that that helps a great deal. But the Government
490
must respond, even within the constraints they have set themselves of not commenting, to the gravity of the situation.
4.54 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I agree with both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord about the seriousness of the situation. Following the events which have been referred to; namely, the escape by Averill and the death of Billy Wright, the Government have imposed additional security measures. Additional security modifications and improvements will be considered in the light of the Narey Report. It is anticipated that it will be published shortly.
The murder of Mr. Keys occurred in the segregated LVF block where no other paramilitary prisoners were located. Therefore, the issue of factional segregation appears to be satisfactory. I shall write to the noble Lord with details as to when it is proposed to replace the current governor at the end of his term of office. The Narey Report is expected soon. I welcome the recognition of the importance of receiving that report and considering it. The Government should take that into account.
Factional segregation is not entirely factional control. The alternative needs to be very carefully considered even given the possible serious consequences for prisoners and prison staff were the segregation system to be ended. We are presently considering the recruitment of a replacement governor, but obviously the exact date is not known. I hope that I have answered the questions raised, but if not, I can assure noble Lords that I shall read Hansard carefully and write to them as a matter of urgency.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I want to raise a point of order. Through the Leader of the House I ask the Front Bench speaker on the Conservative side to apologise to Roisin McAliskey for calling her a terrorist.
Lord Richard: My Lords, we all know that this is a House without a Speaker and therefore without anyone who can make a ruling. It therefore follows that no one in the House can rule whether a point of order is or is not a point of order. My noble friend has made his point. I hope that he will be satisfied and leave it there. Perhaps we can then get on with the rest of the questions on the Statement.
4.57 p.m.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, noble Lords will be grateful to the noble Baroness for coming to the House to make this important Statement on behalf of the Northern Ireland Office. For that reason I shall direct my two brief points to the Government in general and not necessarily to the Minister. Are Her Majesty's Government now prepared to recognise that the prison regime in Northern Ireland has deteriorated alarmingly over the past year by reason of what are called "confidence-building measures" but which in reality are concessions to various terrorist organisations to persuade them to do us all the honour of remaining in

491
the mis-named "peace process"? Do Her Majesty's Government realise that stability will not return to Northern Ireland until it is clear that government and Parliament are on the side of the law-abiding people of Northern Ireland of all faiths?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the concern expressed by the noble Lord is well known to Her Majesty's Government. We believe that it would be inappropriate to make judgments about the current set of circumstances in HMP Maze prior to the Narey Report and the full inspection which is due to be carried out as a matter of urgency. I believe that we would all agree with the noble Lord that confidence has to be felt across the entire community. Government policy is directed to seek that end.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, in an interview on Radio 4 this morning, the chairman of the Prison Officers Association of Northern Ireland said that he would not ask, and did not expect, his members in the Maze to enforce discipline because of the danger to their lives. Do the Government accept that situation?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I did not hear the interview to which the noble Lord refers. Obviously, it is difficult for me to answer in detail. The Maze is the only prison in the world facing the kinds of difficulties that it does. The prison has to accommodate over 500 dedicated terrorists affiliated to and maintaining active links with five different terrorist organisations. The regime at the Maze has to cope with the attendant security and control problems balanced against the need to maintain a humanitarian regime. That is an extremely complex and difficult task. The regime at the Maze therefore represents and reflects a pragmatic solution to the difficulties of operating the system. It is difficult. Obviously, the regime in the Maze will come under close scrutiny during the inspection.
Lord Blease: My Lords, perhaps I may endeavour to express again to the noble Baroness the sentiments conveyed by the other noble Lord from Northern Ireland, the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, who sympathised with the noble Baroness in presenting this problem to the House. It is very difficult for someone who does not live in Northern Ireland to understand the situation. Like other Members of this House who know what is happening there and who experience it day by day and who often have to sit by quietly because of our families and others who live there, perhaps I may say that we can understand the reservations of the noble Baroness at this time. However, does not the noble Baroness agree that recent incidents—not this latest incident, but other such incidents—are among many which call into serious question the whole system of control, management, regime and authority at the Maze Prison? Is there not now a need for an urgent, full, judicial review of the penal system which has given rise to such concern and alarm among peaceable citizens in the Province?
492
I can assure the noble Baroness and the House that those Members of this House who live in Northern Ireland understand the full consequences of what happened yesterday morning when they woke up and heard that broadcast. It shook Northern Ireland to the timbers after what has happened recently. I hope that the Narey inquiry and the appointment of the chief inspector will help to explain some of those things but, like others, I feel that a full judicial inquiry is necessary in this instance.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the police are undertaking a full investigation into the deaths which have occurred in HMP Maze. In addition, the Narey report will look into the escape of Mr. Averill. It would not be appropriate to consider a full judicial inquiry at this stage. We await the outcome of the Narey report. We await the outcome of the forthcoming inspection of the Maze. We shall then be able to make judgments. Even if a full judicial inquiry were to be authorised at this stage, it would have to await the outcome of the police inquiry into the murders in order to be able to make a judgment about proceedings. So, it is not an event that could take place quickly. The Government are taking the appropriate steps.
Lord McConnell: My Lords, the situation in the Maze Prison has been scandalous for a considerable time and it is getting worse if people are being murdered while in prison. We have heard a lot about inquiries. What is needed is immediate firm action and no further concessions to terrorists. We cannot afford to sit and wait for various inquiries to report. Undoubtedly we shall take—at least, I hope that the Government will take—considerable notice of them, but in the meantime let us get on with the job and improve security in the Maze Prison.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. I sought to explain—I apologise to the House if I was not clear—that following the escape there was an immediate investigation and measures to improve security against escape are now being put in place. I am sure that we all understand the noble Lord's impatience for action and results, but it is essential that the police are allowed to carry out their full inquiry into the murder. There can be no quicker way of looking at the issues of security and the running of the prison than to await the inquiry and report from Mr. Narey and the inspection by the Chief Inspector of Prisons, Sir David Ramsbotham.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that however much time may need to be taken—I recognise that there are many problems—in reviewing the situation inside the prison, there seems very little doubt that there is a threat to the lives of the families of the officials and warders who work in the prison? Does the noble Baroness agree that that is fairly generally accepted? Could not something be done at once about that because it leaves everything else open and may be of great reassurance to the officers working there?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am sure that the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness are well known to the Prison Service and that everything is being done to protect families from the sort of risk to which she refers. If I am made aware later of any further detailed plans, I shall write to the noble Baroness.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the present conditions in the Maze were instituted in 1982 after the hunger strike and that since then there has been a gradual erosion of control in that prison? The noble Baroness said that there had been a deterioration recently and mentioned a number of cases. In 1983, 33 prisoners escaped from the Maze Prison—and that was under the aegis of a Conservative Government, so I do not think that the present Government can be totally blamed for the awful conditions that exist in the Maze at present. As has been said, there is undoubtedly a risk to the lives of the warders and prison officers if any attempt is made to take away the concessions that have been made to those prisoners over the years. One need only reflect on what we saw on our television screens recently when the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland went into the Maze Prison. We saw the most horrific consequences of those concessions.
Yesterday morning, when the announcement of the death of the prisoner was first made, the Catholic population were in absolute fear because they thought that it was a repetition of the Billy Wright murder, but it is now rumoured in Northern Ireland that this victim was murdered by his own colleagues. Can the noble Baroness make representations to bring about an early inquest into this awful death—and it is a tragedy for his family, however one may see it—so that the people of Northern Ireland will know exactly what happened to bring about that death? I ask the Minister—I do not believe that she can give an answer—can any of those concessions that were made by the Conservative Government over a period of 18 years to murderers and thugs (on both sides of the political and religious divide) who are now in the Maze be taken away without endangering the lives of warders, prison officers, police and members of the Army?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I begin by apologising if I gave your Lordships the impression that I had made a judgment about deterioration of the situation in the Maze. I certainly did not intend to do that and would want to make a judgment only on the basis of much greater knowledge following reading the Narey report and the report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons. In terms of the questions which my noble friend asked, at this stage I would prefer not to be drawn into making a judgment about the way in which the prison has been managed in the past and now. I am very much aware that the Secretary of State and her ministerial team must make an extremely difficult judgment in consultation with the professionals about the degree to which outside factors should be taken into account. A degree of judgment must be exercised about the way in which the prison is managed.
494
I note the views that have been expressed about the background to the murder of Billy Wright. All I can say is that I shall ensure that the views that have been expressed in your Lordships' House are brought to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and my honourable friend the Minister. Prison officers who are at risk are offered protection for their wives, families and homes. My noble friend referred to the fact that 38 prisoners escaped in 1983. I point out that 19 of those were recaptured immediately. In the light of the introduction of humane conditions balanced against control, one is not necessarily talking about concessions but about the very careful management of an extremely difficult situation. I hope that my noble friend accepts that a difficult judgment has had to be made in the past, must be made now and will have to be made in the future.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement made in the other place. I believe that the events in the Maze are likely to lead to incidents of revenge outside. The penalty will be the maiming or, even worse, the killing of the innocent. Therefore, it is absolutely essential that they must stop. Where do the Government believe that responsibility for preventing such incidents should lie? Do Her Majesty's Government agree that there are no political prisoners in Northern Ireland?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, where responsibility lies for making a judgment about how to prevent further violent incidents is a very difficult matter. Obviously, the ultimate responsibility for violence lies with those who directly perpetrate it. As to the need to protect those who are most at risk, the noble Baroness, with her distinguished experience as a Minister in Northern Ireland, is only too well aware that that is a task which the security forces seek to carry out at all times. The noble Baroness will also be aware of the Government's view that there are no political prisoners anywhere in the United Kingdom.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, will my noble friend ensure that the point raised by my noble friend Lord Fitt and by the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, about the position of prison officers is emphasised to the Chief Inspector of Prisons whom I respect? He knows a great deal about prisons in this part of the United Kingdom. There is not the slightest doubt that if a prison officer at the Maze is regarded as stepping out of line his wife and family are at risk outside. That is something which very few people this side of the water understand. In any inquiry what happens in Northern Ireland must be taken into account; otherwise, the investigation will be English, Welsh and Scottish-based and will not be good enough.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I give my noble friend the assurance that I shall do everything to ensure that the concerns that have been raised today in your Lordships' House are passed on to all those involved in inquiring into the circumstances and conditions.

Data Protection Bill [H.L.]
5.15 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Clause 9 [Right to prevent processing likely to cause damage or distress]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 7, line 36, after second ("controller") insert ("at the end of such period as is reasonable in the circumstances").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 17. Amendments Nos. 17, 18, 22 and 23 are grouped with Amendments Nos. 24 to 28 and 72.
I refer first to Amendments Nos. 17, 18, 22 and 23. At the moment Clauses 9 and 10 provide for data subjects to be able to give data controllers written notice requiring them to cease within a reasonable time or not to begin certain processing activities. The idea of "within a reasonable time" is simple enough. There should be a reasonable margin of time for the controller to put his affairs in order as soon as necessary to comply with the notice. It would be unreasonable in every case to expect him to respond instantly. As drafted, however, these clauses give that measure of latitude only in respect of the requirement to cease processing. There is no such qualification in respect of requirements not to begin. Having thought about it, we believe that that is not right.
If a data controller's plans to begin processing are very far advanced it may be very onerous to expect him to bring those plans to an instant halt in every case where he receives a notice of objection. These amendments in effect introduce a requirement for reasonable notice in such circumstances. The amendments, however, do not say that it will never be right to expect a data controller to bring his plans to an instant halt. In some cases it may well be reasonable to expect a data controller not to begin at very short notice, but not always. Much will depend on individual circumstances. These amendments are designed to introduce the necessary flexibility.
Amendment No. 19 in this group is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Norton, and therefore I pass over it. I turn to Amendment No. 20. This amendment amends an amendment that we made in Committee. We have re-scrutinised it with some care. We did not get it quite right technically, for which I apologise. Subsection (1)(a) of Clause 9 starts at the wrong place so that subsection (1)(b) does not read intelligibly. This amendment is designed to sort that out. Amendments Nos. 21 and 24 are further government amendments and are designed to address points made by the noble Lord, Lord Norton, in Committee. He pointed out that in Clauses 9 and 10 there was no requirement for the data controller to respond to a written notice from an individual objecting to processing. Without such a response the individual would have no means of knowing whether his objection had been successful or, if unsuccessful, why it had been rejected. A requirement to respond in writing to a notice of objection would provide a link between the data controller and the data
496
subject and hence the opportunity for dialogue before the data subject needed to consider involving the commissioner or referring the matter to the courts.
I explained in Committee that a written reply to a notice under Clause 9 or 10 is not essential to ensure compliance with the notice, in contrast to subject access requests made under Clause 7 where the only satisfactory way to comply is to reply in writing. I stressed nonetheless that I saw some force in the noble Lord's points and undertook to consider them further. We have indeed given further thought to the matter and have concluded that amendments in this regard would be helpful. I understand that they would also be welcomed by the registrar.
The amendments would oblige data controllers to respond in writing within 21 days to written notices from individuals seeking to prevent or stop processing likely to cause substantial damage or distress to themselves or others; or the processing of their data for direct marketing purposes. In the first of these instances, Clause 9 cases, controllers would either have to confirm that they had complied or intended to comply with the notice of objection or explain why they thought it unjustified and say to what extent, if any, they had complied or intended to comply with it. In the second instance, Clause 10 cases, where the issue is more straightforward, controllers would simply be required to explain how they had complied or intended to comply. A data subject receiving such a written response would thereby know in a straightforward way whether his request had been complied with and, if it had not, whether there was any basis for further dialogue before involving the commissioner or resorting to litigation.
Amendments Nos. 25 to 28 and 72 are also within this extensive list of amendments. At the moment, Clause 13 imposes a general prohibition on certain forms of automated decision taking which significantly affects data subjects. There are exceptions to the prohibition. But the practice is effectively otherwise banned. It has been put to us that this in fact goes further than the directive actually requires. We think on reflection that that is right. The directive is not expressed in terms of a ban but in terms of giving everyone the right not to be subject to these decisions, which is not the same. We do not wish to impose more restrictions on data controllers than are necessary to safeguard the rights required by the directive, so the amendments remove the ban and confer rights instead.
The difference in practice is that with a ban, no one can take these decisions—except in the exempted circumstances—without running the gauntlet of the entire regulatory mechanism which the Bill sets up. That is too heavy handed. We are therefore giving a right of objection. So, until someone objects, the matter is essentially one for the judgment of the data controller. This is therefore very much on the model of the right to object to direct marketing, set out in Clause 10. We have taken care to ensure that the new right to object properly safeguards the individual's position.
First, there is a general right by notice to require any data controller to refrain from taking these decisions, enforceable by the commissioner or through the courts.
Secondly, data controllers are required to inform data subjects who have not given such notice that a decision has been taken solely by automatic processing. The data subject can then exercise his right to serve a notice within 21 days on the data controller to have the decision reconsidered or taken on a different basis. The data controller must then respond within 21 days to that notice by giving the data subject details of how he intends to comply with the notice.
This revised clause aligns the right not to be subject to automated decision taking more closely with the directive and with the two other key rights in Clauses 9 and 10. I commend these amendments to your Lordships. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 7, line 37, leave out ("within a reasonable time").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, I advise the House that if Amendment No. 19 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 20.
Lord Norton Lord Norton moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 7, line 39, leave out from ("subject") to ("would") in line 44 and insert ("where there are compelling legitimate grounds for believing that the processing of those data or their processing for that purpose or in that manner").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment relates to Clause 9:
"Right to prevent processing likely to cause damage or distress".
The amendment seeks to replace the words "substantial damage" and "substantial distress" with the words appearing in Article 14 of the directive: "compelling legitimate grounds".
As the clause is drafted, the information which is being processed legally may not be processed if it is likely to cause the data subject substantial damage or substantial distress, together with a further test that the damage is unwarranted. Presumably, if the data controller dislikes the data subject and acknowledges that substantial damage or distress is going to be caused, but considers that the processing is warranted, then the data processing is permissible. After all, the criteria are all subjective judgments.
I have been informed by officials at the Home Office that there is no hidden agenda behind the wording of the clause and that the words "substantial damage" and "substantial distress" are their interpretation of the meaning of "compelling legitimate grounds".
I disagree, which is why I have tabled the amendment. I should be grateful to hear the Minister's reasons as to why the damage should be unwarranted. A further complication appears to present itself in that the data subject appears to have no rights to object to data processing, whether or not it causes damage, once the data subject has given consent under paragraph 1 of Schedule 2. That is contained in subsection (2)(a) of the
498
clause. That seems to be a little harsh. I should he grateful to hear the Minister's explanation for that point. I beg to move.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I apologise. I missed the opportunity to speak to Amendment No. 17 when the Minister spoke to the whole group of amendments. I shall intervene here and speak to my concerns relating to Amendments Nos. 24 and 25.
Amendment No. 24 mirrors the requirement that we shall presumably pass in Clause 9 that the data controller should have a duty to advise data subjects of those steps being taken to ensure that the processing of their data has ceased or will not even begin.
Of course, Clause 9 seeks to prevent processing that is unwarranted, as causing or being likely to cause substantial damage or substantial distress. For such data the additional protection of the data subject being advised of how the data controller intends to prevent processing is eminently sensible. There is nothing wrong with that. I am less certain that that is an appropriate approach to Clause 10, which relates to direct marketing.
As the Minister will be aware, a widely used practice in the direct marketing industry is that of offering the customer the opportunity of indicating his wish not to have his data further processed by means of an opt-out tick box. That methodology has distinct advantages. It is simple, concise and clear to both the customer and the business concerned. At issue here is whether it is intended that such tick boxes should be interpreted as being data subject notices. Legal advice obtained by the British Retail Consortium indicates that they should be. If that is the case, it will have the inevitable effect of adding considerably to the administrative costs of, for instance, the mail order catalogue industry.
The isolation of negative option ticks from the volume of orders processed within the specified time frame of 21 days would involve extensive extra work and cost. Moreover, on the basis that that system has operated well enough to date, it is highly unlikely that any real benefit would accrue to the data subject in those circumstances. In fact, he could be severely inconvenienced in the event that, on strict interpretation, he may be required to send any written objection to further processing separately from his having ticked the opt-out box.
In effect, the amendment's application to that practice will do little to enhance consumer protection or human rights. It may even work actively against them. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell me that, as with the slightly related amendment in Grand Committee, I am worrying unnecessarily although, as I have said, the BRC's legal advice is that I am not.
That said, if my interpretation is correct, it strikes me that Amendment No. 24, notwithstanding the Bill's avowed intent to strike an appropriate balance, will work disproportionately against the direct marketing industry. It may be worth adding that, on my interpretation, that industry would, in any event, be subject to the similar provision in Clause 9, albeit only

499
in severe cases, and that that could he interpreted as being adequate to afford data subjects the protection intended by the amendment.
On that basis, I wonder whether Amendment No. 24 is strictly necessary, especially bearing in mind that the directive gives no indication that the procedure arising from it is required. Inevitably, I return to my refrain. It seems to me that this is another instance of a substantive matter, not widely trailed, which will alter the balance on the face of the Bill.
I move to Amendment No. 25. Clause 13 as it stands complies with the directive. On my interpretation, Amendment No. 25 will widen the effects of the Bill into areas not effectively allowed for in the directive. As I understand it, Amendment No. 25 envisages that an individual, writing in advance to a series of companies with which he does not necessarily have any contract, would be entitled to assert his right to ensure that the data controller in question would make no decisions about him based solely on the processing of his personal data by automated means.
On the surface, that seems to be a case of creating work when no work is necessary. I am bound to ask what purpose such a procedure is intended to serve. How often do the Government envisage that data subjects will exercise their rights in that regard? So far as concerns data controllers, it will mean inevitably that they will have to introduce systems and train personnel to accommodate such requests from data subjects, even though they may not have had any dealings with them.
Experience has shown that training staff to perform functions that are seldom put to use, or serve no useful apparent purpose, is not only wasted but debilitating to the morale of the staff concerned. What is important is that it has the adverse effect of diluting the effectiveness of training. On a more general level, it could be interpreted as having the effect of imposing unnecessary burdens upon business rather than retaining the proportionate balance that the Bill is intended to serve. I question whether that is the Government's intention.
I return to my refrain, although I suspect that it is unlikely to be heeded, that, surely, this is another occasion when further reflection between now and Third Reading would be desirable.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I welcome Amendment No. 24 because it gives me an opportunity to make three points. First, I thank the Minister for fulfilling his promise in Grand Committee to write to me about direct advertising by the tobacco trade.
Secondly, over many years, and most recently in a joint EC sub-committee and the Statutory Instruments Joint Committee on which I had the honour to serve, I have been interested in the processes by which European law is translated into British law. Indeed, on occasions I have identified the temptation, to put it mildly, of officials, in the deliberations between Brussels and Parliament, to add little twiddles to miscellaneous European legislation. It occurs to me that this might be one such case and if so it is perhaps desirable.
500
The Liberal Democrat Benches gave an example of "gold plating", as it is known, receiving public approval and the Minister accepted an amendment in principle on that basis. It is pertinent to the operation of the directive in this country, with our particular and peculiar circumstances. However, it is not acceptable when the "gold plating" is hidden and I believe that this might well be such a case.
Amendment No. 24 defines a data subject notice. References to all other definitions in the Bill are found under Clause 62. Therefore, I believe that reference to the notice could, with some degree of use and therefore clarity to those reading the Bill, be included in Clause 62. I hope that the Minister will consider that.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I certainly can and if it is an appropriate course to take we will take it. I shall take advice on the matter.
I am grateful for the welcome given in part by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, and for the comments made by other noble Lords. Specific questions have been raised; for instance, whether under Clause 9(2)(a) any consent given under paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 is not capable of being withdrawn? Any consent given in any part of the Bill may be withdrawn at any time and there is nothing to prevent that.
The noble Earl, Lord Northesk, asked about the problem of the tick box. We believe that a tick box is capable of being a written notice for the purposes of Clause 10(1). The noble Earl indicated that there had been discussions with various trade organisations and officials. We remain of the view that if further discussions are thought to be appropriate officials are always ready to consider improvements. I stress that these are difficult technical areas and we welcome informed criticism and scrutiny. I hope that we have demonstrated that throughout the passage of the Bill.
As regards the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Norton, the directive uses the words "compelling legitimate grounds relating to his particular situation". In our judgment, that is not satisfactory statutory language. I take the point that if at all possible one ought not to twiddle. Perhaps one ought to try to use the spirit and language of the directive and translate it into what is apt for our particular legislative and constructive tradition. We do not believe that the phrase "compelling legitimate grounds relating to his particular situation" is satisfactory in terms of statutory language. It does not mean much, except that the data subject must make a strong case.
We do not see that the courts will be able to give a reliable interpretation of that. How is the data controller, going about his lawful business, to know when he must yield to the interests of a data subject? We believe that this is one of the instances, referred to earlier, where there is a need to bring the words of the directive into sharper focus in order to obtain clarity and consistency. We have taken the view that for a data subject to make out compelling legitimate grounds he must make a case that the processing would damage him or someone else in some way; physically, in monetary terms or by way of distress. Because the presumption is that the data

501
controller must be able to go about his lawful business, we have said that to be a compelling case the harm must be substantial and unwarranted.
That is a high threshold and is intended to be such. The directive indicates that. I do not wish to sound brutal, but some loss and distress are the small change, the regular consequences, of competition. One man's success in business may be his competitor's disappointment. That is not what the legislation is supposed to be about. We need to define matters with care and we believe that the literal words of the directive will not do. The directive's job, in Article 14, is to state terms of policy. The Bill's job is to work that policy carefully into the existing framework of enforceable rights and freedoms laid down elsewhere in the directive. It is not simple, but we believe that we have got it about right, giving effect to the intentions of the directive, in essential guidance on which everyone involved can confidently rely.
Finally, we must come to a judgment about where we draw the balance. I hope that your Lordships will believe that we have done so properly. Perhaps I may refer again to the issue of objection which was raised in a more general context by the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, as opposed to his specific question about tick boxes. We are trying to safeguard the interests of business. Instead of expecting someone in business, running any form of organisation, to have to run the gauntlet of the entire regulatory mechanism which the Bill sets up, we say that until someone objects it is a matter for the judgment of the data controller.
I take the noble Earl's point that one might be setting up systems and having employees trained for the rather and task of doing nothing—quite unlike any experience on the Front Bench in your Lordships' House! We have taken the model which most people believe is capable of working sensibly and reasonably in practice; the right to object to direct marketing as set out in Clause 10. It is true that one might have the extreme circumstance of the excessive individual who will write objecting to companies which have no sensible connection with his or her activities. However, we believe that that will be most unusual. Most people exercise their rights sensibly and we must construct a legislative framework which will deal with that.
I hope that with those comments I have satisfied your Lordships of the merits of the Government's amendment and I ask the noble Lord, Lord Norton, to withdraw his.
Lord Norton: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 20 and 21:
Page 7, line 39, leave out from ("reasons") to first ("is") in line 42 and insert—
("(a) the processing of those data or their processing for that purpose or in that manner").
502
Page 8, line 2, at end insert—
("(2A) The data controller must within 21 days of receiving a notice under subsection (1) ("the data subject notice") give the individual who gave it a written notice—

(a) stating that he has complied or intends to comply with the data subject notice, or

(b) stating his reasons for regarding the data subject notice as to any extent unjustified and the extent (if any) to which he has complied or intends to comply with it.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 20 to 28. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 10 [Right to prevent processing for purposes of direct marketing]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 22 to 24:
Page 8, line 13, after second ("controller") insert ("at the end of such period as is reasonable in the circumstances").
Page 8, line 13, leave out ("within a reasonable time").
Page 8, line 15, at end insert—
("(1A) The data controller must within 21 days of receiving a notice under subsection (1) ("the data subject notice") give the individual who gave it a written notice specifying the steps that he has taken or intends to take to comply with the data subject notice.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 13 [Automated decision-making]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 25 to 28:
Page 9, line 28, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
("(1) An individual is entitled at any time, by notice in writing to any data controller, to require the data controller to ensure that no decision taken by or on behalf of the data controller which significantly affects that individual is based solely on the processing by automatic means of personal data in respect of which that individual is the data subject for the purpose of evaluating matters relating to him such as, for example, his performance at work, his creditworthiness, his reliability or his conduct.
(1A) Where, in a case where no notice under subsection (1) has effect, a decision which significantly affects an individual is based solely on such processing as is mentioned in subsection (1)—

(a) the data controller must as soon as reasonably practicable notify the individual that the decision was taken on that basis, and

(b)) the individual is entitled, within 21 days of receiving that notification from the data controller, by notice in writing to require the data controller to reconsider the decision or to take a new decision otherwise than on that basis.

(1B) The data controller must, within 21 days of receiving a notice under subsection (1) or (1 A)(b) ("the data subject notice") give the individual a written notice specifying the steps that he intends to take to comply with the data subject notice.").
Page 9, line 33, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) A notice under subsection (1) does not have effect in relation to an exempt decision: and nothing in subsection (1A) applies to an exempt decision.
(2A) In subsection (2) "exempt decision" means any decision—

(a) in respect of which the condition in subsection (3) and the condition in subsection (4) are met, or

(b) which is made in such other circumstances as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State by order.").

Page 10, line 1, leave out subsection (5).
Page 10, line 5, after ("(1)") insert ("or (1 A)(b)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 28 [Crime and taxation]:
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Dean of Harptree): My Lords, if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 30.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 17, line 33, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 29 seems appropriately draconian in that I have the support of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, whose tenacity in this matter I now welcome, and I am most grateful to him for his support.
I remind noble Lords why we believe this amendment should be properly assessed. While the current Act of 1984 provides what has seemed to be an acceptable balance between providing proper respect for personal information and the needs of law enforcement and tax collection officials, Clause 28 of this Bill includes provisions which largely replicate those in the 1984 Act but with one additional subsection; namely, Clause 28(4).
I raised my concerns about that subsection in Committee and the Minister was kind enough to reassure me with a government amendment. That amendment deletes the exemption with regard to the first principle, and I warmly welcome that. But I am sorry to see, on careful examination, that it leaves intact the exemption with regard to subject access and disclosure. Therefore, in my view and that of noble Lords on this side of the House, this amendment fails to address satisfactorily the point of principle that, lacking evidence to the contrary, the exemption cannot be justified; in other words, the government amendment fails to deal with the fundamental problem with Clause 28(4) that the blanket exemption is disproportionate.
In order to justify Clause 28(4) there needs to be clear evidence that the absence of the clause would have an adverse effect on important government functions. Those functions which are not enlarged upon in the government amendment must be a department such as the Inland Revenue.
Therefore, I have moved on from the draconian amendment and have suggested in Amendment No. 30 that if we cannot persuade the Government to delete Clause 28(4) entirely, which would be wonderful, we should assist the Government by asking that clear evidence of the necessity of Clause 28(4) is given to us by a specific amendment or deletion followed by a new clause.
Noble Lords will see that Amendment No. 30 refers specifically to the collection of taxes, duties and similar impositions. In other words, Clause 28(1)(c) has been strengthened and enlarged upon. This amendment is a probing amendment and I ask the Government to take it away and examine it. If they are able to do so and will discuss the matter with me outside the Chamber in order to put forward something more appropriate in terms of wording for Third Reading, they would be able to quote Gilbert and Sullivan satisfactorily and suggest that Clause 28(4) "never will be missed".
It is too large a power to give to a modern government. It may be that in the old days of paper records my arguments on Clause 28(4) would not carry the weight which I believe they now carry. But in the days of information technology when powers can be summoned and used so swiftly in terms of access to information and personal data, I believe that Clause 28(4) as it stands is inappropriate and that something more modest, along the lines of my probing amendment, would be more suitable.
The amendment is supported by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor. Therefore, this side of the House is showing its concerns to the Government and asking them to reconsider. I know that the Government have thought carefully about it and that time is short. But I am confident that if we meet to discuss the matter, which is what I request the Minister to do, an answer could be found. I beg to move.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I put my name alongside that of the noble Baroness to the amendment moved in Committee and I have done so again because I am concerned about the powers. In doing so, I realise that the amendment probably goes too far and a middle way should be found. Amendment No. 30 offers an interesting way forward. Therefore, I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, we agreed during Committee stage that Clause 28 is an important part of the Bill, going directly to the balance which has to be struck between individuals' rights in respect of processing of personal data and the need in some circumstances to limit those rights in the general public interest.
The noble Baroness, supported by the noble Viscount, previously moved the first amendment during the Committee stage of the Bill. Subsection (4) allows the Secretary of State, by order subject to affirmative resolution, to specify categories of information for exemption which are generally relevant to tackling crime, apprehending offenders or assessing taxes but which may not prove relevant in every individual case. To the extent that Parliament itself approved—there would have to be a debate on the matter—a selective exemption could be made for particular categories of data. The exemption could only be for crime, offenders or taxation purposes, and as the clause now stands it could only apply to the information to data subjects provision in Schedule 1 of Part II, to the subject access provision in Clause 7 or to the non-disclosure provisions built into the principles of Schedule 1.
As the noble Baroness pointed out, the scope of subsection (4) has already been reduced by government amendment in Committee. We removed the reference to the first data protection principle—fairness and lawfulness. This was in response to general concern about the breadth of the provision, and fully met the specific concern about fairness and lawfulness expressed by the House of Lords' Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee.

505
As was said in Committee, the immediate reason for including the non-disclosure exemption was to enable people to pass information to the Inland Revenue in the public interest. I do not detect any dissent from the validity of that particular exemption. The subsection (4) power takes account of the benefits of outsiders assisting the Inland Revenue's enforcement activities, without subjecting them to a test of case-by-case justification which would be completely destructive in these particular circumstances.
As to the subject information exemption, the Inland Revenue's recently introduced self-assessment system uses a range of indicators to identify individual tax returns which justify further inquiries. Subsection (4) will allow an exemption to be made for withholding this critical risk assessment information from data subjects. If it was not withheld, tax experts, if not the individuals concerned, could soon start to compare cases and deduce the revenue's criteria for further inquiry.
Together the exemptions would not only help compliance with the law but also save honest taxpayers many millions of pounds. So for the Inland Revenue, if for no other purpose, we need Clause 28(4). The complete abolition of Clause 28(4), which the noble Baroness and the noble Viscount both propose in their first amendment, does not seem a practical or sensible alternative.
I turn to the second amendment. This would retain but amend subsection (4), first, by applying it only to processing for the purposes of subsection (1)(c) —namely, the assessment or collection of taxes, duties and similar impositions—and, secondly, by replacing the order-making power with specification on the face of the Bill of the types of data to which the exemption applies. There are plainly benefits to that approach. It limits the exemption to an area of processing for which a clear need has already been identified. It would remove the concern expressed in debate about further orders, as yet unknown, coming forward in due course.
We appreciate those concerns. Indeed, we have no more desire than the noble Baroness to allow hole-in-the-corner restrictions on rights that individuals would otherwise enjoy under the Bill. But there are a number of considerations upon which I believe the noble Baroness should reflect in relation to the proposal that she makes.
First, we—and in that I include not just the Government but also Parliament—would lose the flexibility to deal with new developments. At present, I should make it clear that the Government have no other particular purposes in mind for subsection (4) than tax collection. However, circumstances change both within public administration and in the community. The Inland Revenue provision is needed now because the world has changed—more and more data controllers now use computers and the Inland Revenue has introduced a new self-assessment system. It is, in a sense, fortunate that the timing of this Bill gives us the opportunity to consider the merits of an exemption for those particular purposes.
506
However, once enacted, this Data Protection Bill is likely to need to serve us for a decade or more. The original 1984 Act has had to serve for 14 years, and the House will recognise that we cannot—nor would we want to—put through an amendment to primary legislation on data protection in every parliamentary Session. It is quite possible that changing practices and needs might lead to similar cases being put forward by other departments with an interest in crime or offenders as well as taxation. We do not know at this stage, but the world changes and we need some flexibility to respond when it does.
Secondly—and this is a key point—by using the order procedure we can protect the interests of individuals as data subjects by targeting our exemptions much more precisely on the particular circumstances with which they are intended to deal. That should give reassurance to the House. We do not want to be tempted to cast the exemption wider than we have to now just because there might be a shift in circumstances in, say, three years' time. The order-making procedure gives greater flexibility to tailor and re-tailor provisions and thus reduces any temptation to over-exempt in the first instance, which is what Amendment No. 30 would be in danger of doing. I say that because it relates to taxation as a whole and would, therefore, be much less well focused than the approach in the present clause, which does not give an exemption in relation to taxation as a whole but would only give it to the extent allowed by the order that is actually made.
Thirdly, as I have made clear, we are not in any case contemplating future decisions behind closed doors by civil servants or, indeed, Ministers. The requirement to submit any proposed exemption through the affirmative resolution procedure means that there must be a parliamentary debate about the merits of the case; and that no exemption can take effect unless Parliament approves it. I think that that is a considerable safeguard. Proposing the procedure was an instance of the Government's good faith in the matter. It will, in practice, serve as a protection against any unwise decisions by the Executive on a matter which might affect individuals' rights. We shall, of course, consider all the matters raised this afternoon; but, in the light of the reasons that I have set out and the assurances that I have given, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his clear exposition. I shall, of course, consider everything that he said when I have the opportunity to read Hansard. I accept the noble and learned Lord's point about Amendment No. 29 in relation to Clause 28(4) as being a very tough one. We shall no doubt reconsider the matter next week, but I remind the noble and learned Lord that Clause 28(4) is a novelty; indeed, it did not form part of the 1984 Act. I do not believe that that Act has been deficient with regard to the draconian powers that this subsection gives to government. Nonetheless, I accept the noble and learned Lord's point about Amendment No. 29 and I shall withdraw it.

507
However, I seek a meeting with the noble and learned Lord about Amendment No. 30 which, as he so rightly said, relates to an amendment to Clause 28(4). The noble and learned Lord argued that new developments may arise and that circumstances change. I should remind him that, if we are too prescriptive, we may fall into the trap that the French Government fell into in 1986 when they put forward such a fine-tuned computer hacking Bill that they have not been able to use it since, despite many incidents of computer hacking. That was because their definition of the computer—cerveau électronique--was so precise that it proved to be unusable the day after the legislation had been passed.
I understand precisely the point that the noble and learned Lord made, but he went on to buttress his argument by suggesting that this legislation would have a decade unchallenged and that it would have to be perfect throughout that time. I suggest to him that that will not be the case. We already know of a raft of EU directives which, one way or another, will impinge upon personal data protection. Indeed, the database legislation which the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, and I debated just before Christmas in a short space of time impacts upon this very Bill. I hesitate to speak for the noble Lord, but I believe that he may have shared my surprise when the Chamber emptied rapidly as he and I began to debate that legislation. People just do not understand the importance of this sort of legislation. Beyond this Bill a raft of possible EU directives looms, not least because, as I understand it, there will be an EU data protection registrar working with all the registrars from EU member states.
In that context, I draw the attention of the noble and learned Lord to the, as yet, undebated Schengen information agreement. That is a dramatic development, which I believe will also impact upon this legislation. Therefore, I believe that this sovereign nation—island though we may be, and despite our background of relatively fragile involvement with the EU over the past two decades—will be far more fully involved in such matters in the years to come. Indeed, I hope that we will be, because Britain has so much to offer in terms of professional knowledge and best practice to our EU partners.
In conclusion, I challenge the noble and learned Lord's argument on the implacability of this legislation, once it has been passed, in terms of other legislation not reflecting upon it. I believe that it will need to be re-examined by this House on a regular basis because of outside forces such as directives. There will be a registrar, the Schengen information agreement is already in place and there are more EU directives on the way. However perfect we make the Bill I suggest that, like the 1988 copyright Act, it will still be subject to incoming EU material which, under the new Government, I hope we will be in a position to influence rather than merely react to. That will be exciting. I ask the noble and learned Lord again for a meeting on the matter. In the meantime, I shall not press the amendment and beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 30 not moved.]
6 p.m.
Lord Norton Lord Norton moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 17, line 37, at end insert—
("(5) The Secretary of State may by order provide that a person specified in the order may assess any processing of personal data exempted from any provision of this Act by virtue of this section, under such conditions as may be specified in the order.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 31 relates to Clause 28. I shall not repeat the arguments that I made in Committee save to add that it would appear that most countries which have data protection legislation also have audit powers included in the legislation.
The representation that the Solicitor-General made at Committee stage of unnecessary intrusion by data protection authorities interfering in business in an irresponsible way is not a valid criticism to justify the non-use of audit powers. There are many examples in UK legislation where regulatory bodies have statutory powers of entry and inspection without consent. In some cases their powers go much further than anything suggested in the Committee stage amendments. I refer to powers contained in the National Audit Act 1983, the Audit Commission Bill, the Value Added Tax Act 1994, the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and the Sea Fisheries Act 1968.
Further to the remarks of the Solicitor-General, a power to walk unannounced into premises and demand access to the data processing under way is unlikely ever to be needed by the commissioner. The nature of data processing is such that by asking the right questions and examining files the commissioner can usually determine whether good practice is not being followed through ignorance or default.
My amendment seeks to introduce audit powers for the specific use of Clause 28, which is a powerful clause, especially when compared with Clause 41—the information notice clause—which is at present weak. The auditors would not necessarily be from the data protection commissioner's office as that body may not have the necessary resources available. The audit bodies would be appointed by the Secretary of State. On grounds of democratic accountability alone there should be an external independent body to supervise compliance on a regular basis. I beg to move.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my Amendment No. 49 is grouped with this amendment. That is an amendment that I moved at the Committee stage. It concerns the commissioner giving reasons. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, said at Committee stage that he accepted that my amendment applied only to the extent that the commissioner considers appropriate. However, he then added that it would not always be appropriate for her to explain her views. Of course if it is not always appropriate, she may consider that it is not appropriate. If I may say so, I felt that the noble Lord slightly contradicted himself. We want openness in this matter. I believe my amendment encourages that.
I believe that I may be speaking to the wrong amendment. I apologise to your Lordships. I should be talking about informal approaches.

509
I believe that the commissioner ought to make an informal approach before issuing information notices. In Committee the noble Lord said that, by and large, this happens but that it was not obligatory. I considered carefully the noble Lord's argument. However, I am sure he is aware that the Bank of England is required by the Banking Act 1987 to make such an approach when it is considering revoking a licence. Therefore there is a precedent for my amendment. In the light of that discovery I hope that the Minister will reconsider the issue.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, this group of amendments comprises Amendments Nos. 31, 49, 50, 64 and 75. The amendments concern the powers of the commissioner to ensure that processing is being undertaken in accordance with the provisions of the Bill. We are very much aware, particularly from the views expressed in Committee, that it is important that we should get these powers right and that they should be sufficient but proportionate.
I shall discuss not only the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Norton, and that of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, but also the amendment in this group that has not yet been moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, and also the Government's Amendment No. 50. As your Lordships will be aware, the commissioner is being provided with some significant new powers in the Bill: to serve information notices and to undertake assessments of good practice, but only with the data controller's consent. It must inevitably be a question of judgment as to whether those powers are sufficient and proportionate. On the one hand, the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, suggests with his amendment that the commissioner's powers are too peremptory; he suggests that she should have to try more informal methods before being permitted to issue an information notice. On the other hand, the noble Lord, Lord Norton, and the noble Baroness press the case for significantly more assertive powers. Clearly a balance must be struck. The commissioner needs effective tools for the job but data controllers need to be able to go about their legitimate business unhindered. These are both important considerations and we have thought about them carefully.
The amendment we propose to Clause 41 would remove the prohibition on the commissioner from making an application for a warrant while an appeal is being brought against an information notice. In bringing forward this amendment we have listened carefully to the case which the registrar has made that it would be unhelpful to fetter her access to the courts to request a warrant as the Bill does at present. We have found that case persuasive. If a circuit judge is persuaded of all the matters set out in Schedule 8, which provides important safeguards against inappropriate use, we agree that an outstanding appeal against an information notice should not be an obstacle to the commissioner's taking action. We are weighing the balance in the commissioner's favour on that issue.
510
We have framed the commissioner's powers cautiously. We do not think it appropriate to seek to limit the commissioner's powers further and so we cannot accept the noble Viscount's amendment requiring the commissioner before serving an information notice to seek to resolve matters informally. As was emphasised to the Grand Committee, the commissioner must by law exercise her powers reasonably and for the purpose provided. She is not at liberty to exercise the power to issue an information notice unnecessarily or oppressively. I have every expectation that the commissioner will continue her present respected practice of seeking always to resolve matters informally where appropriate. However, we recognise that it may and will not always be appropriate and sensible to do so. In such rare cases she needs to be able to act. We are unwilling to hobble this power with mandatory preliminaries. That does not seem to us either useful or proportionate.
But I have to say that we are not persuaded either that it is right to introduce the non-consensual audit powers soon to be proposed by the noble Baroness, nor the more specific powers to check on exempt processing where Clause 28 is relied on. As we understand the amendment of the noble Baroness, she will propose that the checking to see whether good practice has been complied with can take place without the consent of the data controller. We have listened carefully to the arguments which have been put forward this evening and on other occasions for the desirability both of the powers suggested by the noble Baroness and the power suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Norton. We have also listened carefully to the contrary arguments which have been put to us over time. We think the balance lies in favour of not subjecting data controllers to the prospect of compulsory check-ups. These can be disruptive. Disruption has a cost. We are not convinced that there is a clear justification for asking businesses to bear this cost. We think the possible benefits of compulsory check-ups do not warrant it. We cannot agree to these amendments today.
We are, however, still listening. I said that the question of the powers of the commissioner was one of judgment and balance, of effectiveness and proportionality. I can say to the House today that the registrar is continuing to put ideas to us as to a more rounded-out information notice power which offers her additional scope for appropriate action without unduly limiting data controllers' liberty to go about their business. We shall see whether we cannot go some way further to accommodate these ideas and bring forward suitable amendments as soon as we can.
I hope that the amendment we bring forward today will be seen as an earnest of our intentions and that in the circumstances the other amendments either will be withdrawn or not moved.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: My Lords, I waited to hear the noble and learned Lord's proposals as regards his amendment before commenting on Amendment No. 64. Perhaps I may comment, first, on Amendment No. 49. I echo the Solicitor-General's comments. Why make an informal approach first? The

511
commissioner should have no such obligation. It would surely give ill-intentioned businesses time to set things right, safely hidden away from everyone, ready to start again with the next case. Such an informal approach would not seem binding and therefore gives all the power to the one in possession of the information.
If the noble and learned Lord agrees with that reasoning—from what he said on his amendment it seems that he did—I suggest that he has weighted too heavily the balance between the Data Protection Registrar and the data controllers, in this case mainly businesses. I suggest that the balance is weighted too heavily against the data protection commissioner.
The noble and learned Lord stated to the House that most businesses will be in line with the 1984 Act and the new legislation. As regards Amendment No. 64, I remind him that, according to polls that have been undertaken officially, 40 per cent. of businesses do not comply with the current Act. Amendment No. 64 takes that into account in allowing the data protection commissioner to make spot checks.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I understand the noble and learned Lord's argument. However, it must be better for matters to be sorted out by informal approaches. The registrar seems to recognise that. That should be recognised in the Bill. I believe the Government recognise that such an approach is always best.
If, in effect, my amendment fetters the registrar, how is it that the Bank of England has to take that same approach when it considers revoking a licence? I have not heard a representative of the Bank of England or any bank officials say that it is a problem in those cases. Section 13 of the Banking Act 1987 makes provision for such action only after the informal approach has failed to resolve the issue.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, with respect to the noble Viscount, as the Bill stands without amendment, it will be perfectly open to the commissioner to make an informal approach before any information notice is served. As I indicated, it may well not be appropriate to make an informal approach first but to go straight to the information notice phase because the circumstances justify it. It seems to us appropriate that the registrar or commissioner should be able to choose the appropriate course.
The noble Viscount draws an analogy between revoking a banking licence on the one hand and serving an information notice on the other. Merely stating the two powers indicates that they are very different indeed. In relation to a banking licence, one is dealing, first, with someone's livelihood, and, secondly, an issue in respect of which there must be public confidence. So, even having heard the arguments so well put by the noble Viscount, it seems to me clear that there is a substantial difference. With the greatest respect to him, we gain no real support or assistance from the analogy that he seeks to draw.
I replied in advance to the noble Baroness in respect of her amendment. At bottom, the noble Baroness's point is that the balance should be tilted in favour of the
512
data subject in this respect. What underlay all my remarks is that we think a balance has to he struck between the rights of the data controller and of the data subject. There is power to audit a data controller's compliance with good practice. We think it right that it should be only with the consent of the data controller. Otherwise it could give rise to a burden upon a data controller which would be too disruptive and too high a price to pay for the regime.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: My Lords, the poll—I understand that it was an official poll—stated that 40 per cent. of current businesses do not honour the current legislation. Does the Minister accept that that must be addressed by the authorities and that the Bill should take that knowledge into account? We cannot allow Acts to be passed which are not fulfilled by the broad majority of those whom they address.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am not aware of the result of the poll but I do not dispute what the noble Baroness says about it. I am sure that the right way to procure compliance with the law is not to place upon business a burden that we regard as undue. I entirely agree with the noble Baroness that it is appropriate and right that the terms of the law be made known, and that the appropriate steps, which do not involve too much of a burden, be taken to ensure their compliance.
At the end of the day it is a question of where the balance lies. We have taken the view, although I have indicated that we are still listening, that the balance lies in making the audit power consensual. It is for that reason that we do not propose to accept the amendment because we think that the balance is in favour of the data controller in relation to that issue.
Lord Norton: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, he mentioned that it would be too great a burden for data controllers. Audits in general have to be performed to ensure fiscal compliance, and so on. In order to comply with a different form of legislation, I can see no reason why audits should not be performed. They need not be burdensome. They need not be on-the-spot checks. They can be planned. The very nature of data processing is that in many instances it leaves a trail. I wonder what burden the noble and learned Lord is thinking of.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the proposal made in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Norton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, involves giving the commissioner the power, without the consent of the person being investigated, to conduct an assessment or investigation of what that person is doing. That involves a disruption, a cost, and an element of intrusion in relation to their business. We do not think that that element of cost, disruption and intrusion is justified in seeking to balance the interest of the data controller with the data subject.
Lord Norton: My Lords, I have listened to the helpful comments of the noble and learned Lord the

513
Solicitor-General. I shall read his comments in Hansard with great interest. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 31 [Journalism, literature and art]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 18, line 43, leave out ("specified in subsection (2)") and insert ("to which this subsection relates").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in this group are Amendments Nos. 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43 and 44.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I believe that we are speaking to Amendments Nos. 32, 33, 34, 35 and 36.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I have been led astray by an older man; namely, the Solicitor-General.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it is entirely my fault for not rising to my feet quickly enough. I am sure that I do not have to remind your Lordships of the importance of Clause 31 in the data protection regime created by the Bill. It is to that section that this group of amendments relates. Perhaps I may speak to Amendments Nos. 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 73 and 76 in this group.
I turn first to Amendments Nos. 32 to 36. This group of amendments is in effect mainly technical. It brings the terminology of subsection (1) of Clause 31, into line with that of subsection (2) of the clause.
The remaining four amendments to Clause 31 are of a little more substance, but they clarify or complement the provision which is already made in the clause rather than changing it. An essential feature of the mechanism is that it prevents data protection considerations being used to prevent the publication of unpublished journalistic and other material in certain circumstances. Clause 31 (4) provides for civil proceedings under any relevant provisions of the Bill to be stayed where a data controller claims that the processing is undertaken only for the special purposes—that is, journalistic, literary or artistic purposes—and with a view to the publication of previously unpublished material. The stay on proceedings remains until either the claim is withdrawn or a determination of the commissioner under Clause 43 that those criteria are not satisfied takes effect.
It occurs to us that there may be a small ambiguity in these arrangements. This concerns the circumstances in which no explicit claim is made by a data controller, but it appears to the court that the basis for such a claim is there—that is, that the processing is for the special purposes and with a view to the publication of unpublished material. Our expectation would be that in such circumstances a court would not in any event proceed to grant relief—by way of injunction otherwise—to a data subject inappropriately. But these amendments put the matter beyond doubt. They require proceedings to be stayed where a data controller makes a claim or where it appears to the court independently that the criteria in Clause 31(4) are met.
514
This small change would improve the clarity of the Bill in this respect. I commend the amendments to the House. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendments Nos. 33 to 36:
Page 19, line 22, after ("Where") insert ("at any time ("the relevant time")").
Page 19, line 23, leave out from ("claims") to ("that") in line 24 and insert (", or it appears to the court,").
Page 19, leave out line 34.
Page 19, line 36, at end insert ("or
() in a case where the proceedings were stayed on the making of a claim, that the claim is withdrawn.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 32 [Research, history and statistics]:
Lord Teviot Lord Teviot moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 20, line 7, at end insert ("and for these purposes a data controller may deposit records containing personal data in a record office open to the public which agrees to comply with a code of practice approved by the Secretary of State").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall also speak to Amendment No. 38. In Committee, I was happy to accept the Minister's assurance that many of the concerns of the archive profession would be addressed by a code of practice issued by the Secretary of State. This amendment attempts to encourage record creators to deposit the records which are to receive further processing, and in particular to make provision for the period between the coming into force of this Act and the issuing of a code of practice. They need a clear statement authorising them to do so in the Act and not merely in the obscurity of a statutory instrument, which may not even appear for some months.
However, I do not know whether I have been pre-emptive or precipitate. Looking at Amendment No. 58, I see that there is to be a new schedule, which the Minister will undoubtedly introduce with the next grouping, to deal with certain exemptions so far as I understand them. I accept that they may go some way towards reassuring the depositories I have in mind. However, I should like an assurance when the Minister replies.
I should point out that these records are not for the most part public records, and therefore do not have the protection that that definition provides. The type of records I have in mind are membership registers of trades unions or co-operative societies, lists of employees and their wages among business records, and records of the recipients of charities. All such records are now protected by long closure periods, which will doubtless be confirmed by a code of practice. But until that code is published there is a real risk that some organisations, realising that their records do not conform to the Act, will be deterred from depositing them, resulting in their eventual loss to posterity.
I turn to Amendment No. 38. Noble Lords will realise that I moved this precise amendment in Committee. The noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General indicated that the Government were concerned over this particular

515
point and would try to find a compromise within the European directive. Hence, I have been anxiously looking for such an amendment to appear—sadly, in vain. However, I appreciate the Government's difficulties, and perhaps one will see such an amendment next week. That is the reason why I am reintroducing this amendment.
Its purpose is to ensure that research by a third party in the interests of a particular data subject without his prior consent may be allowed to continue. Although Clause 32(5)(b) allows such research on a data subject by a person acting "on his behalf", I am concerned that that provision may be interpreted to mean acting "on his authority". This amendment would cover the relatively few cases where that condition cannot be met.
Furthermore, I have learnt today that the Law Society is eagerly awaiting the Minister's answer to this problem. Its particular concern is for solicitors to be able to continue to trace beneficiaries of wills—an example that I mentioned in Committee. I should be grateful to have an answer to that point today. If the phrase "vital interests", in paragraph 3(a) of Schedule 3 is thought to be too clinical, I should be happy to add "or in his best interests" to Clause 32(5)(b), which would thus allow data to be disclosed "to the data subject or a person acting on his behalf, or in his best interests". I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, within this group we begin with Amendments Nos. 37 and 38, followed by Amendments Nos. 39, 40, 41, 42, 43 and 44. With his usual courtesy the noble Viscount has indicated that he will not move or speak to Amendments Nos. 45 and 46. That therefore leaves Amendment No. 74 as the final amendment in this group.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, for explaining these amendments. Perhaps I may return to Amendment No. 58 in its due place since it deals with a very technical area which will require a rather tedious and lengthy explanation. As I understand the noble Lord's first amendment, he wants to bring about a situation whereby records obtained by one person for a particular person and then passed to a public records office may be made available to the public in accordance with a code of practice approved by the Secretary of State.
Public records offices and public registers do not need to rely on the research exemption in order to disclose material which is statutorily required to be made public. That can be done under Clause 33.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, I believe the examples I mentioned were those records not covered by the Public Records Office. They may be covered by a records office, but not the Public Records Office.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, that is so. We have made distinct provisions for public records which are not limited by the restrictions in Clause 32. I appreciate that there may be two further concerns. The
516
first relates to contributors to registers. We believe that their position is covered by Clause 34(1). The second is the point on which the noble Lord was good enough to intervene: that records are not always the subject of statutory requirements to be provided.
We do not believe that the noble Lord's amendment is capable of being accepted within the terms of the directive. I think the noble Lord anticipated that that might be our response. It is not a response which is come to lightly; we wish to do our best to be co-operative. As I said in Grand Committee, I recognise these concerns. I am happy to say that officials are more than willing to meet the noble Lord—if he wishes, with colleagues of his or those who have interests in this field—to see whether we can make further progress towards a solution which might be helpful to the interests which he identified.
The amendment would bring about the disclosure of any records collected for any purpose. It would imply that the disclosure of any records collected for any purpose was fair and compatible with the original purpose. That might be the case in some circumstances, but we are unable to advise your Lordships that such disclosure would always meet the relevant tests. I hope that this can be the subject of further useful discussion.
If the record office keeps records for research purposes only, the contributor can himself claim the benefit of Clause 32(5) to protect an exemption on which he himself relies.
What I have said about Clause 33 also applies to Amendment No. 38. In so far as there are other research purposes which do not have the public character to which the noble Lord referred, the limitations in Clause 32(5) acknowledge the fact that we are allowed by the directive to make special exemptions for research purposes on two conditions only. The first is that data subjects are suitably safeguarded and the second that the processing in question is solely for research purposes and no other. Clause 32(5) is therefore for a particular function and no other. It provides that researchers can within those limits which I have identified give voluntary subject access without losing the right to say that they are processing solely for research purposes.
Clause 32(5)(b) provides that researchers can safely disclose to the data subject or a person acting on his behalf. Read with Clause 32(5)(d), we believe that that extends to persons whom the researcher had reasonable grounds for believing are acting on behalf of the data subject. We do not see any need to give that reference to a person acting on behalf of the data subject an artificially narrow construction. The noble Lord raised the question of an executor acting on behalf of a beneficiary. We believe that the executor acting on behalf of a beneficiary is lawfully entitled to continue the researches. That is the specific Law Society question which the noble Lord transmitted earlier. I hope that I have been able to reassure him and, through him, the Law Society.
Casting the net a little wider, it might well extend to a care agency, for instance, seeking to search out and support a missing person, though we should bear in mind that sometimes persons go missing for purposes

517
which they regard as legitimate and reasonable. One again comes up against the difficult balancing which is sometimes easer to identify than to bring perfect harmony to.
I hope that I have been able to reassure the noble Lord that the reference to persons acting on behalf of the data subject can be given a practical interpretation, but I repeat that we are always willing to have discussions on an official or any other basis to see whether anything further ought properly to be done.
The next amendment in this grouping is Amendment No. 39, a government amendment. There is currently an omission in Clause 33. This clause relates to personal data made available to the public by or under enactment. An example might be the Registry of Births, Marriages and Deaths. The clause provides an exemption for such data from the subject information provisions, from Clause 12, which gives data subjects the right to have inaccurate data rectified, and from the non-disclosure provisions.
The exemption from Clause 12 is included because, where the data are required to be maintained and made available to the public by statute, those statutes make detailed special provision as to accuracy and therefore as to amendments and corrections. Any amendments to the data to correct inaccuracies in that class of records should be made under those specific statutory provisions rather than under data protection legislation. But Clause 12 is only a part of the Bill's regime for correcting inaccuracy. It provides individuals with direct civil remedies in the courts. Its counterpart in the regulatory regime is the fourth data protection principle, which requires personal data to be accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date. This principle can be enforced by the commissioner, and breach may give rise to a claim for damages under Clause 11. We do not want that to apply to public registers. They have their own systems for correcting inaccuracies. It would be a confusing duplication to overlay that with the requirements of the fourth data protection principle. That is the purpose of this amendment.
Amendments Nos. 40, 41, 42, 44 and 74 are government amendments. Amendment No. 43 is in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Campbell of Alloway and Lord Burnham. If I understand correctly from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, our amendments meet his requirements.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I can solve this problem very quickly. I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his courtesy in writing to my noble friend Lord Campbell and even more so for incorporating our Amendment No. 43 in his Amendment No. 44. I shall not move our amendment.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his courtesy. I shall deal with Amendments Nos. 40 to 44 and 74 relatively briefly. This group of amendments extends slightly the subject information exemptions in Schedule 7.
518
The first three amendments deal with the exemption in paragraph 1 of the schedule for confidential references provided by data controllers. It has been suggested to us that the exemption is too narrow. The references to education and employment may be too restrictive. We have therefore introduced these amendments to meet those concerns.
The next government amendment, Amendment No. 44, creates a new power for the Secretary of State to specify subject information exemptions in relation to employment and the service of the Crown or in relation to offices to which appointments are made by Her Majesty or Ministers. There is already an exemption in paragraph 3(a), which the Solicitor-General dealt with in Grand Committee, in relation to appointments to judicial office or the office of Queen's Counsel. It has been represented to us, not least by the noble Lords, Lord Burnham and Lord Campbell of Alloway, that there may be other positions in the public service which ought to be within that class of exemption. I stress that I am not able to make any commitments, but an example might be the senior military posts to which the noble Lords, Lord Burnham and Lord Campbell of Alloway, referred previously. We accepted this widening in principle; the question was how to bring it about.
I stress to your Lordships that we have in mind here only public positions where there are pressing reasons of public interest to make exemptions from the principle of transparency in subject access provisions. There are some public positions which are sensitive and prominent and which require absolute discretion in the appointments system if it is to work at all. We believe that the public is entitled to expect as much information as possible, subject to the provisos I set out. We have therefore formulated an exemption to allow the greatest possible flexibility so that the Secretary of State may specify exemptions by order. We believe that that is wiser and more prudent than having something inflexible on the face of the Bill. We have set out the scheme. I repeat my gratitude for the approach taken by the noble Lords, Lord Burnham and Lord Campbell of Alloway.
The final amendment, Amendment No. 74, is to ensure that this power is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. We believe that any detailed proposals brought forward ought to be subject to parliamentary scrutiny in this respect.
On the basis of that explanation, I commend the government amendments.
The Lord Bishop of Ely: My Lords, I do not want to detain the House for too long. The concerns of the Bill relate to the data holding of all the Churches and, in particular, to the Church of England in virtue of Crown appointments. I should like to assure your Lordships of the full support of the Churches—who have discussed the implications of the directives since their publication—for individual rights and their commitment to scrupulous observation of them.
The Churches have a specific concern for the selection of candidates for ordination. That is why we are grateful for the Minister's proposal in Amendment

519
No. 40, and the insertion of the word "training". The addition of the word "office" in Amendment No. 42 is also helpful in that it extends the exemption of confidential references to ecclesiastical offices, which are not employment. I also express my support for Her Majesty's Government's inclusion in Amendment No. 44 relating to Schedule 4 of appointments made by Her Majesty.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for his support. Representations were made by the Church authorities. We gave them every consideration and that is why we tabled the amendments in this form.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for responding to my amendment so pleasantly and informatively. I shall take up his invitation to meet with his officials, particularly in relation to Amendment No. 37. With no more ado, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 38 not moved.]
Clause 33 [Information available to the public by or under enactment]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 20, line 28, at beginning insert ("the fourth data protection principle and").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Miscellaneous exemptions]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 40 to 42:
Page 49, line 20, after second ("education") insert (", training").
Page 49, line 20, after second ("education") insert (", training").
Page 49, line 21, after ("subject") insert—
("() the appointment, or prospective appointment, of the data subject to any office,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 40, 41 and 42. With the leave of the House, I shall move them en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 43 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 49, line 32, at end insert—
("Crown employment and Crown or Ministerial appointments
3A. —(1) The Secretary of State may by order exempt from the subject information provisions personal data processed for the purposes of assessing any person's suitability for—

(a) employment by or under the Crown, or

(b) any office to which appointments are made by Her Majesty, by a Minister of the Crown or by a Northern Ireland department.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 45 and 46 not moved.]
6.45 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 47:
After Clause 37, insert the following new clause—
TRANSITIONAL RELIFY
(". Schedule (Transitional relief) (which confers transitional exemptions) has effect.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 47 is grouped with Amendments Nos. 58 and 79 to 83. These amendments deal with the transitional provisions proposed for the Bill. I am sorry that it has taken until now to put these proposals forward.
Perhaps not unusually, the transitional arrangements are extremely difficult because they are so technical and have been subject to many representations from various people with proper interests. It has therefore been difficult and time consuming, added to which the directive is not always the easiest beast to understand. We have tried to take full advantage of transitional flexibility while ensuring that arrangements are practicable and, importantly, do not impose unnecessary burdens on controllers.
We canvassed a number of different options and from the soundings there appeared to be two messages: first, to try to avoid if possible the creation of a dual regime— that is, running the 1984 regime and the new Act alongside each other during the transitional period; secondly, there was an equally strong desire to find arrangements which did not result in systems having to be changed merely because additional personal data were added to them during the transitional period. Organisations are already having difficulties with what I might call the "year 2000 problem". Many have made clear to us the extreme difficulty that they would have in coping in addition with the detailed technical systems changes which a provision of that kind could require. I believe that the new arrangements meet those concerns, as well as our objectives.
I shall try to be brief. The overall structure and effect of this grouping has two broad objectives: Amendments Nos. 47, 58 and 79 to 82 give effect to the transitional exemptions permitted by the directive; Amendment No. 83 makes technical provision to ensure the smooth transition from the 1984 Act to the Bill. I shall concentrate on the first set.
The key provision is the new schedule in Amendment No. 58. The basic scheme is that the transitional exemptions apply to "processing already under way" immediately before 24th October 1998. As your Lordships will remember, that is the date on which the directive is due to be implemented by member states. Paragraph 1 of the schedule is expressed in such a way that the subsequent addition of new personal data to such processing need not invalidate the exemption. That was one of the major concerns expressed to us in the discussions which I mentioned earlier. We are confident that the directive does not require this, so nor does the Bill. Any new processing started on or after 24th October 1998 will be subject in full to the Bill's provisions immediately. I therefore turn to processing already under way.
The expression is taken directly from the directive, where it is not defined. We have considered carefully whether we should seek to define it in the Bill. We concluded that we should not. Taking account of the informal discussions, we believe that the best approach is to allow data controllers themselves to decide what is and what is not processing already under way, in the light of any guidance that may be issued by the commissioner.
The exemptions fall into four broad categories. First, there is a complete exemption until 23rd October 2001 for certain processing. That covers processing of all manual records to which the Bill applies; and the principal categories of automated processing to which the 1984 Act does not apply but which will come within the scope of the Bill. Those exemptions are set out in paragraphs 2 to 9 of the schedule. Paragraph 10 is a limited exemption which replicates a similar provision in the 1984 Act.
The second main exemption applies to all remaining automated processing— that is to say, processing to which the 1984 Act currently applies. Such processing is exempt from those provisions of the Bill which are specified in paragraph 11 until 23rd October 2001. The exemption applies to most of the new requirements imposed by the Bill in consequence of the requirements of the directive. So, for example, it covers the requirement for controllers to provide information to data subjects under paragraph 2 of Part II of Schedule 1; the requirement to satisfy the conditions in Schedules 2 and, in some cases, 3, before processing may take place; the rights for individuals to object to processing under Clauses 9, 10 and 13; as well as a number of other provisions which are new to our law.
The third main exemption relates only to manual records. Part III of the schedule provides a further exemption from, in effect, the first five data protection principles (except the requirement to provide information to individuals under paragraph 2 of Part II of Schedule 1) for the period 24th October 2001 to 23rd October 2007.
In relation to this further exemption, first, it does not cover the subject access arrangements. Individuals will be able to gain access to their manual records as from 24th October 2001. Secondly, the exemption does not apply to personal data newly added to existing systems after 24th October 1998. Thirdly, the new schedule in Amendment No. 82 provides for individuals to be able to remedy inaccuracy in, or incompatible holding of, their manual data during this extended transitional period. The fourth category of exemption in the new schedule in Amendment No. 58 is found in Part IV. That provides special exemptions for processing only for historical research purposes from 23rd October 2001 with no limit as to time.
I have had to spend a moment or two in explanation. These are technical provisions. One further point arises as to the technical provisions made in Amendment No. 83. One of the things that is of concern to those affected by data protection law is what will happen to the existing registrations. We offer them the answer that existing registrations will be preserved until their normal date of expiry and treated as though they were notifications under the Bill. We believe that that is the simplest and most effective solution to this problem. It means that the data protection commissioner will not be
522
inundated with a sudden surge of requests for notification. That is the thinking and the rationale behind this group of amendments. I commend them to the House.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for bringing forward his amendments on transitional relief. We are grateful that the Government have taken full advantage of the transitional reliefs that are offered by the directive.
As the noble Lord will appreciate, his amendments cover about six pages of the Marshalled List and he gave a detailed explanation, which I shall have to study carefully. Perhaps I may ask him one or two questions. I am concerned that paragraph 1 of the new schedule is not sufficiently clear on eligible data. Given continuity of processing for a specified purpose, the definition of "eligible data" for the purpose of transitional relief needs to be clear that they do or do not include data, such as an address, amended on or after 24th October 1998; data added to a record, such as a new educational qualification or a subsequent purchase for a continuing customer, on or after 24th October 1998; and data for a new data subject, such as a new employee, added on or after 24th October 1998.
It also needs to be clear that amendments to programs—such as those that may be necessary to deal with the millennium bug—do not disqualify the processing from transitional relief. Can the noble Lord confirm that none of these changes should disqualify processing from one or more specified purposes which began prior to 24th October 1998 from transitional relief? Further, the replacement of a software system by another employed for the same continuing purpose should not disqualify that processing from transitional relief.
I realise that those are rather technical questions and that transitional relief is a technical subject. Therefore, I should be very happy for the noble Lord to write to me between now and Third Reading on any of those questions. However, in general, we welcome the noble Lord's amendments.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, that is a generous approach by the noble Viscount. His questions merit thought and detailed answers. I undertake to write to him with specific answers to each of those questions as soon as maybe.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 40 [Request for assessment]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 23, line 25, at beginning insert ("if not, of his reasons, and if so,").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is the amendment I nearly started to move earlier. I moved a similar amendment in Committee. It concerns the commissioner and open government. The Minister said that he accepted that my amendment applies only to the extent that the commissioner considers appropriate, which I thought was very reasonable. He then went on to say that it would not always be appropriate for her to explain her views and actions. He then used that as an argument for saying that he did not want the

523
amendment. That rather contradicted his earlier statement that the commissioner has to go through this thing only if she considers it appropriate. For the benefit of open government I thought it worth returning to the issue to ask whether the Government had reconsidered their earlier view. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the noble Viscount will recall my noble friend's response to his amendment in the Grand Committee. My noble friend said that the amendment was unnecessary and that remains the Government's view.
Clause 40 places an express duty on the commissioner, except in very limited circumstances, to make an assessment on receipt of a request. The noble Viscount's amendment seeks to require the commissioner to give reasons when she refuses to make such an assessment. The only bases for refusal to make an assessment under the Bill are those set out in subsection (2)(a) and (b): namely, that she has not been supplied with such information as she may reasonably require in order to satisfy herself as to the identity of the person making the request; and to enable her to identify the processing in question. So far as concerns paragraph (a)—the identity of the person making the request—that is a simple matter of trying to establish who that person is. If she is not sure, she can ask for more information. If she does not get it, she will notify as much under Clause 40(4). The basis for that will be apparent.
So far as concerns paragraph (b), if she cannot identify the processing, that is likely to be because the person making the request has not, despite being asked, given enough details. Again, that will be very apparent. The commissioner will have information notice powers to seek further details from the data controller if she can establish who that is. So it is unlikely to be the situation contemplated in Clause 40(2). On the basis of the analysis that has gone before, a refusal to make an assessment at all is only likely to result from a process of dialogue with the person making the request which ends with that person not giving enough reasonably requested information. It is not the sort of exercise of discretion where the giving of reasons has much obvious part to play.
Further—and this is worth emphasising—Clause 40(4)(b) requires the commissioner to inform the person who made the request for assessment of,
"any view formed or action taken as a result of the request".
In the Government's view, this means that the commissioner must, to the extent that is appropriate, tell the person concerned of any view formed about the merits of a request in respect of which the commissioner decided to take no further action. Whether and to what extent the provision of this information is considered appropriate is, in our view, quite rightly a matter for the commissioner, who must have particular regard to the issues of confidentiality.
I have explained why we think the amendment is unnecessary. I hope that the noble Viscount will consider withdrawing it.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. He has certainly gone further this
524
evening in explaining the Government's views. I think he has satisfied my concerns. No doubt the registrar will have to take account of what was said during the passage of the Bill. I shall read carefully what he said. I notice that Amendments Nos. 67, 68 and 69 are grouped with this amendment and I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord wishes to speak to those before I withdraw my amendment.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for making that point. I was going to interrupt him before he finished because I had noticed that I should have spoken to those amendments.
Amendments Nos. 67 and 68 would allow the Secretary of State to direct the commissioner to assist the commissioner's opposite number in a colony to carry out data protection functions. They have been tabled in response to a request by the Gibraltar Government, who would like the commissioner to be able to carry out data protection functions on behalf of any supervisory authority which may be established there at the request of that authority. I understand that it is Gibraltar's intention to legislate later this year to implement the 1995 data protection directive. It is not possible to estimate at this stage the extent to which the commissioner's assistance might be required in this regard, but I am able to reassure your Lordships that the commissioner will be able to charge for such assistance on such terms as the Secretary of State may direct or approve. Any receipts would be treated in the same way as if they had originated in the United Kingdom; that is to say, they would be subject to the regime specified in Schedule 5 to the Bill.
With the leave of the House I shall speak to Amendment No. 69. It relates to Clause 54. That clause imposes a duty of confidentiality on the commissioner and her staff in respect of the information (both personal and business) which they obtain in the course of carrying out their functions under the Bill. The duty is backed by a criminal sanction.
Concern has been expressed that the clause, as drafted, imposed too heavy-handed a regime of secrecy on the commissioner's staff and might place them too readily in jeopardy of criminal penalties. I know this was of concern to the registrar, particularly in view of the culture of openness fostered by her office.
In Committee, we had a brief debate about the clause in the light of an alternative version proposed by the noble Baroness. Since Committee, Home Office officials have had the opportunity of discussing the provision further with the registrar. This amendment is the result of that discussion.
It does not go as far as the registrar had perhaps hoped but does incorporate some of her suggestions. While we are sympathetic to her points we are, of course, bound to implement the directive. This contains an express requirement to ensure that the members and staff of the supervisory authority are subject to a duty of professional secrecy with regard to confidential information to which they have access.

525
While I appreciate that the overall effect of the amendment may appear remarkably similar to that of the present clause, it incorporates a number of changes. The obligation of secrecy is now imposed specifically on, and limited to a,
"person who is or has been the Commissioner, a member of the Commissioner's staff or an agent of the Commissioner",
rather than being related to the information itself and applying to "any person". This wording more clearly reflects the requirement of the directive.
The drafting has also been amended so that the elements which go to make up "confidential" information are contained within subsection (1) and the extent of the authority to disclose is contained in subsection (2).
On a technical point, the registrar considers that with this amendment, in the event of a prosecution under the clause, it would be for the prosecution to prove that the disclosure was of information falling within all the elements now contained in subsection (1).
The registrar had some concern that in the present clause subsection (1)(b) might operate by way of a defence only, so that if a member of staff was charged under the clause he would have to show that the information was in the public domain. This would have placed an additional burden on the member of staff. To that extent we have sought to accommodate the registrar's concerns. I cannot see, in the light of the directive, that we can go further. I commend the amendment to the House.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, it is for me at this stage to withdraw Amendment No. 48.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 41 [Information notices]:
[Amendment No. 49 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 24, line 7, leave out from ("furnished") to ("pending") in line 8.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Appeal proceedings]:
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 47, line 30, leave out ("one or more") and insert ("those").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Clause 27 provides for personal data to be exempted from the main elements of the Bill where this is necessary to safeguard national security. The question of necessity is subject to ministerial certification. There is a right of appeal to a designated panel of the Data Protection Tribunal for any person affected by this certification. Schedule 6 has effect in relation to these appeals and to the proceedings of the tribunal in respect of them.
The proposed amendments have been put forward in the light of further reflection on the arrangements for these appeals. In this group are Amendments Nos. 51 to 56 and 84 and 85. The amendments to Schedule 6 would have the effect of requiring the tribunal to be drawn from a panel of lawyers, with a quorum of three, when hearing
526
national security appeals other than those in which the tribunal's jurisdiction is exercised ex parte. The lawyers concerned would be drawn from those designated under paragraph 2(1) of the schedule—that is to say, from among the tribunal chairman and those deputy tribunal chairmen appointed by the Lord Chancellor whom he has designated as being capable of hearing such appeals. One of these persons will be designated by the Lord Chancellor to preside.
I said in Committee that there were going to be circumstances in which personal data would need to be processed by the appropriate agencies to safeguard national security and that Clause 27 made it possible for that processing to be carried out without the otherwise subsisting controls in the Bill putting national security at risk. I stressed that the exemptions available could apply only if they were required for the purpose of safeguarding national security and then only to the extent that they were so required. A Cabinet Minister, the Attorney-General or the Lord Advocate would be able to certify the requirement. Under the current Data Protection Act the signing of a ministerial exemption certificate is the end of the matter. This Bill will give a right of appeal to the Data Protection Tribunal for persons affected by the issue of such a certificate.
Having, as I indicated, reflected further on the arrangements for giving effect to this provision, I have to tell your Lordships that we believe the specialised and sensitive nature of these national security appeals makes it appropriate for them to be dealt with by lawyers. Appeals under Clause 27(4) of the Bill will be dealt with by a judicial review approach, which is not inherently suited to lay input. Appeals under Clause 27(6) will turn on a fairly narrow question of fact; that is, whether the certificate's general description of personal data applies to the particular personal data at issue. It seems to us that this is a question on which lay members are unlikely to be able to offer any additional expertise. But if a non-legal perspective or a particular data protection expertise were found to be needed in either case, this would of course be available to the tribunal via expert witnesses. An all-lawyer panel for these appeals would, furthermore, be in line with the position of the existing tribunals which deal with matters involving national security.
The proposed amendments to Schedule 10 would have the effect of removing the tribunal from the jurisdiction of the Council on Tribunals in relation to national security appeals. It would remain subject to the council's supervision in respect of other appeals. This proposed exemption, which the council is aware of, would preserve the current position in regard to tribunals dealing with matters involving national security; namely, that they are, because of national security considerations, outside the council's remit and their work kept within the so-called "ring of secrecy".
A particular effect of this amendment would be to remove the requirement for the Secretary of State to consult the Council on Tribunals when drawing up rules of procedure. I am happy to assure your Lordships that in practice we intend to consult the council on the rules

527
which we shall be drafting for national security appeals as soon as practicable and which will be laid before your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendments Nos. 52 to 56:
Page 47, leave out lines 32 to 34.
Page 47, line 35, leave out ("or (2)").
Page 47, line 36, leave out ("or, as the case may be, by the Secretary of State").
Page 47, leave out lines 40 to 44 and insert ("three of the persons designated under paragraph 2(1), of whom one shall he designated by the Lord Chancellor to preside").
Page 48, leave out lines 1 to 4.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 47 [Determination of appeals]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 28, line 3, at end insert—
("(7) For the purposes of subsection (6) —

(a) the address of a registered company is that of its registered office, and

(b) the address of a person (other than a registered company) carrying on a business is that of his principal place of business in the United Kingdom.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this a short, technical amendment. Clause 47 deals with the determination of appeals brought by data controllers to the Data Protection Tribunal. Subsection (6) provides that any party to an appeal may refer to the appropriate court on a point of law. The appropriate court depends on the address of the person who was the appellant. This amendment specifies how the address is determined. It is based on the approach adopted in the 1984 Act. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord William of Mostyn Lord William of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 58:
Before Schedule 8, insert the following new schedule—
("SCHEDULE
TRANSITIONAL RELIEF
PART 1
INTERPRETATION OF SCHEDULE
1.—(1) For the purposes of this Schedule, personal data are "eligible data" at any time if, and to the extent that, they are at that time subject to processing which was already under way immediately before 24th October 1998.
(2) In this Schedule—
"eligible automated data" means eligible data which fall within paragraph (a) or (b) of the definition of "data" in section 1(1):
"eligible manual data" means eligible data which are not eligible automated data;
"the first transitional period" means the period beginning with the commencement of this Schedule and ending with 23rd October 2001;
"the second transitional period" means the period beginning with 24th October 2001 and ending with 23rd October 2007.
528
PART II
EXEMPTIONS AVAILABLE BEFORE 24TH OCTOBER 2001
Manual data
2. Eligible manual data are exempt from the data protection principles and Parts II and Ill of this Act during the first transitional period.
Processing otherwise than by reference to the data subject
3. During the first transitional period, for the purposes of this Act (apart from paragraph 1), eligible automated data are not to be regarded as being "processed" unless the processing is by reference to the data subject.
Payrolls and accounts
4. —(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2), eligible automated data processed by a data controller for one or more of the following purposes—

(a) calculating amounts payable by way of remuneration or pensions in respect of service in any employment or office or making payments of, or of sums deducted from, such remuneration or pensions, or

(b) keeping accounts relating to any business or other activity carried on by the data controller or keeping records of purchases, sales or other transactions for the purpose of ensuring that the requisite payments are made by or to him in respect of those transactions or for the purpose of making financial or management forecasts to assist him in the conduct of any such business or activity,

are exempt from the data protection principles and Parts II and III of this Act during the first transitional period.
(2) It shall be a condition of the exemption of any eligible automated data under this paragraph that the data are not processed for any other purpose, but the exemption is not lost by any processing of the eligible data for any other purpose if the data controller shows that he had taken such care to prevent it as in all the circumstances was reasonably required.
(3) Data processed only for one or more of the purposes mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(a) may be disclosed—

(a) to any person, other than the data controller, by whom the remuneration or pensions in question are payable.

(b) for the purpose of obtaining actuarial advice,

(c) for the purpose of giving information as to the persons in any employment or office for use in medical research into the health of, or injuries suffered by, persons engaged in particular occupations or working in particular places or areas,

(d) if the data subject (or a person acting on his behalf) has requested or consented to the disclosure of the data either generally or in the circumstances in which the disclosure in question is made, or

(e) if the person making the disclosure has reasonable grounds for believing that the disclosure falls within paragraph (d) above.

(4) Data processed for any of the purposes mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) may be disclosed—

(a) for the purpose of audit or where the disclosure is for the purpose only of giving information about the data controller's financial affairs; or

(b) in any case in which disclosure would be permitted by any other provision of this Part of this Act if sub-paragraph (2) were included among the non-disclosure provisions.

(5) In this paragraph "remuneration" includes remuneration in kind and "pensions" includes gratuities or similar benefits.
Unincorporated members' clubs and mailing lists
5. Eligible automated data processed by an unincorporated members' club and relating only to the members of the club are exempt from the data protection principles and Parts II and III of this Act during the first transitional period.

529
6. Eligible automated data processed by a data controller only for the purposes of distributing, or recording the distribution of, articles or information to the data subjects and consisting only of their names, addresses or other particulars necessary for effecting the distribution, are exempt from the data protection principles and Parts II and III of this Act during the first transitional period.
7. Neither paragraph 5 nor paragraph 6 applies to personal data relating to any data subject unless he has been asked by the club or data controller whether he objects to the data relating to him being processed as mentioned in that paragraph and has not objected.
8. It shall be a condition of the exemption of any data under paragraph 5 that the data are not disclosed except as permitted by paragraph 9 and of the exemption under paragraph 6 that the data are not processed for any purpose other that mentioned in that paragraph or as permitted by paragraph 9, but—

(a) the exemption under paragraph 5 shall not be lost by any disclosure in breach of that condition, and

(b) the exemption under paragraph 6 shall not be lost by any processing in breach of that condition.

if the data controller shows that he had taken such care to prevent it as in all the circumstances was reasonably required.
9. Data to which paragraph 8 applies may be disclosed—

(a) if the data subject (or a person acting on his behalf) has requested or consented to the disclosure of the data either generally or in the circumstances in which the disclosure in question is made,

(b) if the person making the disclosure has reasonable grounds for believing that the disclosure falls within paragraph (a), or

(c) in any case in which disclosure would be permitted by any other provision of this Part of this Act if paragraph 8 were included among the non-disclosure provisions.

Back-up data
10. Eligible automated data which are processed only for the purpose of replacing other data in the event of the latter being lost, destroyed or impaired are exempt from section 7 during the first transitional period.
Exemption of all eligible automated data from certain requirements
11. —(1) During the first transitional period, eligible automated data are exempt from the following provisions—

(a) the first data protection principle to the extent to which it requires compliance with—

(i) paragraph 2 of Part II of Schedule 1,

(ii) the conditions in Schedule 2, and

(iii) the conditions in Schedule 3,

(b) the seventh data protection principle to the extent to which it requires compliance with paragraph 13 of Part II of Schedule 1;

(c) the eighth data protection principle,

(d) in section 7(1), paragraphs (b), (c)(ii) and (d),

(e) sections 9 and 10,

(f) section 11, except so far as relating to—

(i) any contravention of the fourth data protection principle,

(ii) any disclosure without the consent of the data controller,

(iii) loss or destruction of data without the consent of the data controller, or

(iv) processing for the special purposes, and

(g) section 13.

(2) The specific exemptions conferred by sub-paragraph (1)(a), (c) and (e) do not limit the data controller's general duty under the first data protection principle to ensure that processing is fair.
530
PART III
EXEMPTIONS AVAILABLE AFTER 23RD OCTOBER 2001 BIT BEFORE 24TH OCTOBER 2007
12. —(1) During the second transitional period, eligible manual data which were held immediately before 24th October 1998 are exempt from the following provisions—

(a) the first data protection principle except to the extent to which it requires compliance with paragraph 2 of Part II of Schedule 1,

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

(c) section 12.

(2) Sub-paragraph (1) does not apply to any eligible manual data to which the exemption in paragraph 14 applies.
PAK r IV
EXEMPTIONS AFTER 23RD OCTOBER 2001 FOR HISTORICAL RESEARCH
13. In this Part of this Schedule "the relevant conditions" has the same meaning as in section 32.
14. —(1) Eligible manual data which are processed only for the purpose of historical research in compliance with the relevant conditions are exempt from the provisions specified in b-paragraph (2) after 23rd October 2001.
(2) The provisions referred to in sub-paragraph (1) are—

(a) the first data protection principle except in so far as it requires compliance with paragraph 2 of Part II of Schedule 1,

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

(c) section 12.

15. —(1) After 23rd October 2001 eligible automated data which are processed only for the purpose of historical research in compliance with the relevant conditions are exempt from the first data protection principle to the extent to which it requires compliance with the conditions in Schedules 2 and 3.
(2) Eligible automated data which are processed—

(a) only for the purpose of historical research,

(b) in compliance with the relevant conditions, and

(c) otherwise than by reference to the data subject,

are also exempt from the provisions referred to in sub-paragraph (3) after 23rd October 2001.
(3) The provisions referred to in sub-paragraph (2) are—

a) the first data protection principle except in so far as it requires

compliance with paragraph 2 of Part II of Schedule 1,

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

(c) section 12.

16. For the purposes of this Part of this Schedule personal data are not to be treated as processed otherwise than for the purpose of historical research merely because the data are disclosed—

(a) to any person, for the purpose of historical research only,

(b) to the data subject or a person acting on his behalf,

(c) at the request, or with the consent, of the data subject or a person acting on his behalf, or

(d) in circumstances in which the person making the disclosure has reasonable grounds for believing that the disclosure falls within paragraph (a), (b) or (c).").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 49 [General duties of Commissioner]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 28, line 8, after ("Commissioner") insert ("after taking account of any representations made to him").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in Committee I moved a similar amendment seeking that it should be the duty of the commissioner, after consultation with the parties affected, to promote good practice by data controllers. The noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General said that he wondered whether a statutory requirement was right because it raised questions about who the commissioner should consult and that that would be difficult to prescribe. I took note of what the noble and learned Lord said. I have altered the wording so that the amendment I am moving today, Amendment No. 59, does not impose any prescription on who should be consulted, but states simply that the commissioner should take,
"account of any representations made to him".
I propose the amendment on the basis that it seems an improvement which takes into account the noble and learned Lord's concerns. Given that he offered me a slight chink of light in Committee when he said that he would certainly have another look at the matter, I thought that I would come back with a better amendment. I hope that the noble and learned Lord finds it acceptable.
Again, this is a large group of amendments and your Lordships will note that it includes Amendment No. 71, which stands in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, and which deals with data matching. I have my name to that amendment as I support the principle, but I shall leave it to the noble Baroness to go into all the details. I beg to move Amendment No. 59.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, this grouping contains Amendments Nos. 59, 61 and 62. The noble Viscount is right that he raised this matter in Committee when we indicated that there might be some advantage in requiring the commissioner to consult. We promised that we would think about it and we have. We have become convinced that there is an advantage in making the consultation mandatory. It is important that those affected should give their views as part of the process. We believe that our amendment, Amendment No. 61, which specifies,
"and after such consultation with trade associations, data subjects or persons representing data subjects as appears … to be appropriate",
meets the questions raised by the noble Viscount and others. On the basis that our amendment has been drafted to meet what the noble Viscount wanted, I ask him to withdraw his amendments, Amendments Nos. 59 and 62, and to endorse Amendment No. 61, the government amendment, which we have tabled bearing in mind the representations that he made.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister and I shall, of course, withdraw my amendment. According to my groupings list, other amendments are grouped with this and I do not know whether it will be convenient for the noble Baroness,
532
Lady Nicholson, to speak to her amendments now or whether the Minister would like me to withdraw mine first.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords. I believe that Amendments Nos. 60, 63 and 65, which stand in the name of the noble Baroness, come in the next group.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I have a different groupings list. I am grateful to the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 28, line 18, at beginning insert ("where so directed by the Secretary of State by order and, in any other case,").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 60, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 63, 65, 66, 77 and 71, which is starred. In their places on the Marshalled List, I shall also be moving Amendments Nos. 73 and 76, but most briefly because they are part of the same thinking as this group of important amendments to which I am now speaking.
Clause 49, my proposals to amend it, and the new clause which I propose should follow it (Amendment No. 66) strengthen the position of the data protection commissioner particularly with regard to codes of practice. In justifying such action, perhaps I may refer again in greater detail to Article 286 of the treaty establishing the European Community, as inserted and renumbered by the Treaty of Amsterdam, to the effect that the Council, acting together with the Commission and the European Parliament,
"shall establish an independent supervisory body responsible for monitoring the application of such Community Acts"—
as it were, on data protection—
"to Community institutions and bodies and shall adopt any other relevant provisions as appropriate".
Therefore, it looks as though a commissioner will be appointed in Brussels with broad supervisory powers if the majority of member states go ahead, as we would expect, and ratify the Treaty of Amsterdam. It therefore falls to us to ensure that our data protection commissioner has sufficient powers and sufficient authority to be able to work effectively within such an important EU context.
I suggest that strengthening parliamentary control over this area of work is therefore good practice both with regard to the principles of parliamentary democracy and, in our democracy, given a change of government, it enables the Opposition to look at the activities of the commissioner and to flag up certain issues. That is why my two later amendments ask for positive rather than negative resolution.
The Minister and the Solicitor-General already know how important I think it is that we should address codes of practice particularly with regard to data matching which opens the door to blackmail and blacklisting with regard to household indebtedness and trades union involvement. From the point of view of individual freedom, codes of practice on matters such as data matching are safeguards

533
with regard to the trend towards centralised computer filing. The immense increase in computer powers in the current decade has made "Big Brother" central filing not only a technical possibility by the linking together of data bases, but also an actuality. "Relational data bases" are a practice nowadays.
I am sorry to say that "data mining", which means searching for and extracting by automated means information of personal importance, has already been engaged in by government agencies for commercial gain. I cite an example which was given to me by a civil servant. In his private capacity he parked his car in a Safeway car park. To his surprise, by the payment of £2.50 Safeway was easily able to obtain his details from the agency which carries the powers of registering and licensing cars. In fact, he had no parking problems. He wrote to the agency asking how it could happen and it was made clear to him that on the payment of £2.50 it was readily possible for the agency to match a numberplate with a name and address and to give out that information to bodies such as supermarkets and carpark agencies.
It is therefore very important that codes of practice are drawn up for data matching and data mining for relational data bases. These and other codes of practice will come within the commissioner codes to be placed before Parliament so that Parliament, the general public and experts in this field of work are consulted in the drafting process under this part of the Bill, and Parliament will have authority to comment on such matters.
Finally, although such codes will not have the force of law they will nevertheless be extremely influential. I have no doubt that they are likely to be taken into account by courts dealing with data protection issues. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down perhaps she will deal with one point. The noble Baroness said that she was speaking also to Amendment No. 65, which apparently withdraws the requirement for the registrar to report to Parliament. I did not hear the noble Baroness refer to it in her speech. Can she tell us why that is so?
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Elton, did not hear me comment on that amendment then I doubt very much that I did so. I shall double check to see why I did not. I suggest that the noble Lord speaks to it himself.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I acknowledge that the Bill poses a thorny problem with respect to issues such as data matching, data sharing or even data mining, to which reference has been made by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson. On the one hand, I do not believe that there is any dispute among noble Lords that such practices need to be properly and adequately regulated. On the other hand, it is appropriate to ask whether the Bill as a framework measure is the appropriate place to achieve that objective. I have no objections to the general tenor of
534
the arguments advanced by the noble Baroness. Proper and effective codes of practice for data matching are necessary. In so far as I have a difficulty with Amendment No. 71 for example, it is because while it may resolve the specific problem with regard to government departments its remit in the context of a framework Bill is a little too focused. Leaving aside the issue of government being a very big player in information terms, what of the wider world? More importantly, if it is right to regulate data matching in this way surely it must also be right to regulate data sharing, data mining, closed-circuit television and so on by the same mechanism.
I believe that to pursue such a strategy renders the Bill rather more unwieldy than it already is and fixes it in the here and now, thereby denying it flexibility so that it is applicable for a sufficient time in the future. Of course, this leaves the difficulty of how to regulate such practices within government and beyond. I believe that the most serious problem is one of transparency. The public do not really know what goes on with government and other databases. That being so, it gives rise to quite legitimate fears that perhaps data is being processed unlawfully by virtue of these practices. The real issue, therefore, is how to engender that transparency as well as greater public trust in the technologies involved. I tend to share the views of the data registrar on this point. In an ideal world it should be possible to ensure that the practice of data matching or any other current or future computer technologies which have implications for data protection is assessed on a case-by-case basis; that is, as a generality it is conceivable that the problems here can be addressed by reference to specific clauses in individual pieces of legislation as and when it becomes necessary so to do.
It may be that earlier in today's proceedings I enhanced any reputation that I may have had as a member of the awkward squad as far as concerned the Front Bench opposite. I hope that my views on this matter do something to help redress the balance. I wonder whether the Minister has any thoughts to contribute on the suggestion that I have made.
Lord Elton: My Lords, curiosity has drawn me into a debate in which I had not intended to participate. I note that Amendment No. 65 purports to remove subsection (7) from Clause 49. That amendment is grouped with the amendment that we are now discussing, and the noble Baroness said that she was speaking to the whole group. I do not believe that it is germane to the questions that we are asking. I believe that it would be quite appropriate for the registrar to make this report, but, in any case, if no arguments are put forward in support of the amendment I am sure that noble Lords will not accept it.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, in his very helpful intervention, may not have had sufficient time to examine Amendment No. 66.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, this group of amendments comprises Amendments Nos. 60, 63,

535
65, 66, 71 and 77. We had an interesting and informed discussion in Grand Committee on the issues to which the noble Baroness has returned this evening. We pointed to the Bill's requirements for personal data to be processed lawfully and fairly and explained that such processing could only be done lawfully by government departments under the royal prerogative, the authority of statute or common law. We said that we would carefully consider the general approach which the noble Baroness deployed.
There have been very useful discussions between officials, the registrar, the noble Baroness and others. Therefore, we are perfectly content to welcome Amendments Nos. 60, 63, 65, 66 and 77. We believe that there is a difference in respect of Amendment No. 71, and it is certainly not the awkward squad from which I take my endorsement. The noble Earl, who is very knowledgeable on these matters, said in Committee that we needed to have a sensible regime that was not too inflexible and therefore unworkable either for industry or data subjects. We do not believe that we need the provision set out in Amendment No. 71 because we have moved flexibly towards a good deal, if not virtually all, of what the noble Baroness sought. Therefore, I respectfully invite her not to press Amendment No. 71 but to be content with something that is larger than a small mercy; namely, the acceptance, if your Lordships think it appropriate, of Amendments Nos. 60, 63, 65, 66 and 77.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Government. I appreciate the initial response of the Minister when I raised this subject in Grand Committee. I fully appreciate that this subject takes considerable thought. I also recognise the hard work that has gone into this matter and the consultation that the Minister has so kindly enabled me to have. He properly suggests that with the acceptance of Amendments Nos. 60, 63, 65, 66 and 77 Amendment No. 71 becomes superfluous. Therefore, I shall not move that amendment.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, since my name appears against Amendment No. 71 perhaps I may say how grateful
I am to the Government for their response. Certainly, the other amendments go a long way towards addressing the concerns.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 28, line 18, after ("so") insert ("and after such consultation with trade associations, data subjects or persons representing data subjects as appears to him to be appropriate,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 62 not moved.]
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 28, line 28, at end insert—
("() An order under subsection (3)(a) shall describe the personal data or processing to which the code of practice is to relate, and may also describe the persons or classes of persons to whom it is to relate.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 64 not moved.]
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne moved Amendment No. 65:
Page 29, line 4, leave out subsection (7).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne moved Amendment No. 66:
After Clause 49, insert the following new clause—
REPORTS AND CODES OF PRACTICE TO BE LAID BEFORE PARLIAMENT
(".—(1) The Commissioner shall lay annually before each House of Parliament a general report on the exercise of his functions under this Act.
(2) The Commissioner may from time to time lay before each House of Parliament such other reports with respect to those functions as he thinks fit.
(3) The Commissioner shall lay before each House of Parliament any code of practice prepared under section 49(3)(a) for complying with a direction of the Secretary of State, unless the code is included in any report laid under subsection (1) or (2).").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 51 [International co-operation]:
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendments Nos. 67 and 68:
Page 30, line 11, leave out from ("Kingdom") to end of line 14 and insert—
("() The Commissioner shall, if so directed by the Secretary of State, provide any authority exercising data protection functions under the law of a colony specified in the direction with such assistance in connection with the discharge of those functions as the Secretary of State may direct or approve, on such terms (including terms as to payment) as the Secretary of State may direct or approve.").
Page 30, line 28, at end insert—
(""data protection functions" means functions relating to the protection of individuals with respect to the processing of personal information.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 54 [Confidentiality of information]:
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendments Nos. 69 and 70:
Page 31 , line 23, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert—
("(1) No person who is or has been the Commissioner, a member of the Commissioner's staff or an agent of the Commissioner shall disclose any information which—

(a) has been obtained by, or furnished to, the Commissioner under or for the purposes of this Act,

(b) relates to an identified or identifiable individual or business, and

(c) is not at the time of the disclosure, and has not previously been, available to the public from other sources,

unless the disclosure is made with lawful authority.

537
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) a disclosure of information is made with lawful authority only if, and to the extent that—

(a) the disclosure is made with the consent of the individual or

of the person for the time being carrying on the business,

(b) the information was provided for the purpose of its being made available to the public (in whatever manner) under any provision of this Act.

(c) the disclosure is made for the purposes of, and is necessary for, the discharge of—

(i) any functions under this Act, or

(ii) any Community obligation,

(d) the disclosure is made for the purposes of any proceedings, whether criminal or civil and whether arising under, or by virtue of, this Act or otherwise, or

(e) having regard to the rights and freedoms or legitimate interests of any person, the disclosure is necessary for reasons of substantial public interest.").

After Clause 56, insert the following new clause—
AMENDMENTS OF CONSUMER CREDIT ACT 1974
(".—(1) In section 158 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (duty of agency to disclose filed information) —

(a) in subsection (1) —

(i) in paragraph (a) for "individual" there is substituted "partnership or other unincorporated body of persons not consisting entirely of bodies corporate", and

(ii) for "him" there is substituted "it",

(b) in subsection (2), for "his" there is substituted "the consumer's", and

(c) in subsection (3), for "him" there is substituted "the consumer".

(2) In section 159 of that Act (correction of wrong information) for subsection (1) there is substituted—
"(1) Any individual (the "objector") given—

(a) information under section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998 by a credit reference agency, or

(b) information under section 158,

who considers that an entry in his file is incorrect, and that if it is not corrected he is likely to he prejudiced, may give notice to the agency requiring it either to remove the entry from the file or amend it."
(3) In subsections (2) to (6) of that section—

(a) for "consumer", wherever occurring , there is substituted "objector", and

(b) for "Director", wherever occurring, there is substituted "the relevant authority".

(4) After subsection (6) of that section there is inserted—
"(7) The Data Protection Commissioner may vary or revoke any order made by him under this section.
(8) In this section "the relevant authority" means—

(a) where the objector is a partnership or other unincorporated body of persons, the Director, and

(b) in any other case, the Data Protection Commissioner."

(5) In section 160 of that Act (alternative procedure for business consumers) —

(a) in subsection (4) —

(i) for "him" there is substituted "to the consumer", and

(ii) in paragraphs (a) and (b) for "he" there is substituted "the consumer" and for "his" there is substituted "the consumer's", and

(b) after subsection (6) there is inserted—

"(7) In this section "consumer" has the same meaning as in section 158." ").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 71 not moved.]
Clause 60 [Orders, regulations and rules]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 34, line 29, leave out ("13(5)") and insert ("13(2A)(b)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 34, line 32, at end insert—
("section 31(3),")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment earlier on Amendment No. 76. It is a request to the Government that approval should be sought by Parliament rather than that codes of practice, particularly with regard to journalism, literature and art should go through by negative resolution. I ask the Government to comment on the two amendments.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 73 and 76 were grouped at an earlier stage. Amendment No. 73 is being moved now, but there is no difficulty over that.
It is essentially a matter of judgment whether a particular power to make subordinate legislation should be subject to negative resolution or affirmative resolution. The general approach adopted in the Bill is that the affirmative resolution procedure is needed where the subordinate legislation affects individuals' rights—for example, subject access exemption orders— or otherwise significantly affects the basic data protection regime; for example, the specification of the descriptions of processing subject to preliminary assessment under Clause 21.
I do not believe that the power provided by Clause 31(3) falls into either of those categories. It is essentially a procedural mechanism for establishing whether or not particular codes of practice relevant to the question whether publication of special purposes material is in the public interest. The order-making power does not of itself determine whether publication is in the public interest. It merely allows the Secretary of State to say that such and such a code may be relevant to the question. This is a very limited function, and I am not absolutely persuaded that it needs to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
The Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation of your Lordships' House has considered the powers provided by the Bill to make subordinate legislation. In its report of 4th February it did not express a view on the power in Clause 31(3). This suggests that the Select Committee is satisfied that negative resolution is appropriate. Nonetheless, since the noble Baroness clearly feels that this is a matter of some importance, I am pleased to tell her that the Government can accept these amendments.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: My Lords, I am grateful to the Solicitor-General for his exceptional attention to the Select Committee's pronouncements. I hope that he will continue to think about its pronouncements on Clause 28(4) later in the proceedings.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 34, line 34, at end insert ("or paragraph 3A of Schedule 7").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 75 not moved.]
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 34, leave out line 42.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 34, line 42, at end insert—
("section 49(3)(a),").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 62 [Index of defined expressions]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 78:
Page 36, line 44, column I. leave out ("personal") and insert ("information or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee we improved the drafting of the definition of processing by substituting "information or data" for "personal data", wherever the latter term appeared. Those changes were not carried through to the index of definitions. This technical amendment is designed to put that right. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 79 to 83:
Page 36. line 44, column 2, at end insert ("and paragraph 3 of Schedule (Transitional relief)").
After Clause 62, insert the following new clause—
MODIFICATIONS OF ACT HAVING EFFECT AFTER 23RD OCTOBER 2001 BUT BEFORE 24TH OCTOBER 2007
(". During the period beginning with 24th October 2001 and ending with 23rd October 2007, the provisions of this Act shall have effect subject to the modifications set out in Schedule (Modifications of Act).").
After Clause 62, insert the following new clause—
TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND SAVINGS
(". Schedule (Transitional provisions and savings) (which contains transitional provisions and savings) has effect.").
540
Before Schedule 10, insert the following new schedule —
("SCHEDULE
MODIFICATIONS OF ACT
1. After section 13 there is inserted—
"Rights of data subjects in relation to eligible manual data.
13A.—(1) A data subject is entitled at any time by notice in writing—

(a) to require the data controller to rectify, block, erase or destroy eligible manual data which are inaccurate, or

(b) to require the data controller to cease holding eligible manual data in a way incompatible with the legitimate purposes pursued by the data controller.

(2) A notice under subsection (1)(a) or (b) must state the data subject's reasons for believing that the data are inaccurate or, as the case may be, his reasons for believing that they are held in a way incompatible with the legitimate purposes pursued by the data controller.
(3) If the court is satisfied, on the application of any person who has given a notice under subsection (1) which appears to the court to be justified (or to be justified to any extent) that the data controller in question has failed to comply with the notice, the court may order him to take such steps for complying with the notice (or for complying with it to that extent) as the court thinks fit.
(4) In this section—
"eligible manual data" means eligible manual data as defined in paragraph 1(2) of Schedule (Transitional relief) which were held immediately before 24th October 1998, but does not include data to which the exemption in paragraph 14 of that Schedule applies;
"inaccurate" shall he construed in accordance with section 12(5)."
2. In section 14(1), for "13" there is substituted "13A".
3. In section 31—

(a) in subsection (2) for "section 13" there is substituted "sections 13 and 13A", and

(b) in subsection (4) for "or 13(6)" there is substituted ", 13(6) or 13A(3)".

4. In section 33 for "section 12" there is substituted "sections 12 and 13A".
5. In paragraph 9 of Part 11 of Schedule 1, the word "or" at the end of paragraph (c) is omitted and after paragraph (d) there is inserted "or
(e) he contravenes section 13A by failing to comply with a notice given under subsection (1) of that section to the extent that the notice is justified.").
Before Schedule 10, insert the following new schedule—
("SCHEDULE
TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND SAVINGS
Interpretation
1. In this Schedule—
"the 1984 Act" means the Data Protection Act 1984;
"the old principles" means the data protection principles within the meaning of the 1984 Act;
"the new principles" means the data protection principles within the meaning of this Act.
Effect of registration under Part 11 of 1984 Act
2.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2), any person who, immediately before the commencement of Part III of this Act—

541

(a) is registered as a data user under Part II of the 1984 Act, or

(b) is treated by virtue of section 7(6) of the 1984 Act as so registered,

is exempt from sections 16(1) and 21(5) of this Act until the end of the period at the end of which, if section 8 of the 1984 Act had remained in force, the registration would have expired unless renewed.
(2) Any application for registration as a data user under Part II of the 1984 Act which is received by the Commissioner before the commencement of Part III of this Act (including any appeal against a refusal of registration) shall be determined in accordance with the old principles and the provisions of the 1984 Act.
(3) If a person falling within paragraph (b) of sub-paragraph (1) receives a notification under section 7(1) of the 1984 Act of the refusal of his application, sub-paragraph (1) shall cease to apply to him—

(a) if no appeal is brought, at the end of the period within which an appeal can be brought against the refusal, or

(b) on the withdrawal or dismissal of the appeal.

(4) The Commissioner shall include in the register maintained under section 18 an entry in respect of each person who is exempt from section 16(1) by virtue of sub-paragraph (1); and each entry shall consist of the particulars which, immediately before the commencement of Part III of this Act, were included (or treated as included) in respect of that person in the register maintained under section 4 of the 1984 Act.
(5) For the purposes of section 19(1), a person who is exempt from section 16(1) by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) shall be taken to be a person in respect of whom an entry as a data controller is for the time being included in the register maintained under section 18; and notification regulations under Part IV of this Act may make provision modifying the duty referred to in section 19(1) in its application to such persons.
(6) Where, at the end of the period referred to in sub-paragraph (1), subsection (5) of section 21 applies to a person who was previously exempt by virtue of that sub-paragraph, that subsection shall have effect with the omission of the words from "and either" onwards.
(7) Notification regulations under Part III of this Act may make further transitional provision in connection with the substitution of Part III of this Act for Part II of the 1984 Act (registration), including provision modifying the application of provisions of Part III in transitional cases.
Rights of data subjects
3.—(1) The repeal of section 21 of the 1984 Act (right of access to personal data) does not affect the application of that section in any case in which the request (together with the information referred to in paragraph (a) of subsection (4) of that section and, in a case where it is required, the consent referred to in paragraph (b) of that subsection) was received before the day on which the repeal comes into force.
(2) Sub-paragraph (1) does not apply where the request is made by reference to this Act.
(3) Any fee paid for the purposes of section 21 of the 1984 Act before the commencement of section 7 in a case not falling within sub-paragraph (1) shall be taken to have been paid for the purposes of section 7.
4. The repeal of section 22 of the 1984 Act (compensation for inaccuracy) and the repeal of section 23 of that Act (compensation for loss or unauthorised disclosure) do not affect the application of those sections in relation to damage or distress suffered at any time by reason of anything done or omitted to be done before the commencement of the repeals.
5. The repeal of section 24 of the 1984 Act (rectification and erasure) does not affect any case in which the application to the court was made before the day on which the repeal comes into force.
6. Subsection (3)(b) of section 12 does not apply where the rectification, blocking, erasure or destruction occurred before the commencement of that section.
542
Enforcement and transfer prohibition notices served under Part V of 1984 Act
7.—(1) If, immediately before the commencement of section 38—

(a) an enforcement notice under section 10 of the 1984 Act has effect, and

(b) either the time for appealing against the notice has expired or any appeal has been determined,

then, after that commencement, to the extent mentioned in sub-paragraph (3), the notice shall have effect for the purposes of sections 39 and 45 as if it were an enforcement notice under section 38.
(2) Where an enforcement notice has been served under section 10 of the 1984 Act before the commencement of section 38 and immediately before that commencement either—

(a) the time for appealing against the notice has not expired, or

(b) an appeal has not been determined,

the appeal shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of the 1984 Act and the old principles and, unless the notice is quashed on appeal, to the extent mentioned in sub-paragraph (3) the notice shall have effect for the purposes of sections 39 and 45 as if it were an enforcement notice under section 38.
(3) An enforcement notice under section 10 of the 1984 Act has the effect described in sub-paragraph (1) and (2) only to the extent that the steps specified in the notice for complying with the old principle or principles in question are steps which the data controller could be required by an enforcement notice under section 38 to take for complying with the new principles or any of them.
8.—(1) If, immediately before the commencement of section 38—

(a) a transfer prohibition notice under section 12 of the 1984 Act has effect, and

(b) either the time for appealing against the notice has expired or any appeal has been determined,

then, on and after that commencement, to the extent specified in sub-paragraph (3), the notice shall have effect for the purposes of sections 39 and 45 as if it were an enforcement notice under section 38.
(2) Where a transfer prohibition notice has been served under section 12 of the 1984 Act and immediately before the commencement of section 38 either—

(a) the time for appealing against the notice has not expired, or

(b) an appeal has not been determined,

the appeal shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of the 1984 Act and the old principles and, unless the notice is quashed on appeal, to the extent mentioned in sub-paragraph (3) the notice shall have effect for the purposes of sections 39 and 45 as if it were an enforcement notice under section 38.
(3) A transfer prohibition notice under section 12 of the 1984 Act has the effect described in sub-paragraph (1) or (2) only to the extent that the prohibition imposed by the notice is one which could be imposed by an enforcement notice under section 38 for complying with the new principles or any of them.
Notices under new law relating to matters in relation to which 1984 Act had effect
9. The Commissioner may serve an enforcement notice under section 38 on or after the day on which that section comes into force if he is satisfied that, before that day, the data controller contravened the old principles by reason of any act or omission which would also have constituted a contravention of the new principles if they had applied before that day.
10. The Commissioner may serve an information notice under section 41 on or after the day on which that section comes into force if he has reasonable grounds for suspecting that, before that day, the data controller contravened the old principles by reason of any act or omission which would also have constituted a contravention of the new principles if they had applied before that day.

543
Warrants issued under 1984 Act
11. The repeal of Schedule 4 to the 1984 Act does not affect the application of that Schedule in any case where a warrant was issued under that Schedule before the commencement of the repeal.
Complaints under section 36(2) of 1984 Act and requests for assessment under section 39
12. The repeal of section 36(2) of the 1984 Act does not affect the application of that provision in any case where the complaint was received by the Commissioner before the commencement of the repeal.
13. In dealing with a complaint under section 36(2) of the 1984 Act or a request for an assessment under section 39 of this Act, the Commissioner shall have regard to the provisions from time to time applicable to the processing, and accordingly—

(a) in section 36(2) of the 1984 Act, the reference to the old principles and the provisions of that Act includes, in relation to any time when the new principles and the provisions of this Act have effect, those principles and provisions, and

(b) in section 39 of this Act, the reference to the provisions of this Act includes, in relation to any time when the old principles and the provisions of the 1984 Act had effect, those principles and provisions.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 10 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendments Nos. 84 and 85:
Page 56, line 31, leave out ("sub-paragraph (a) of').
Page 56, leave out lines 33 to 36 and insert—

(""Data protection

14.(a) The Data Protection Commissioner appointed under section 6 of the Data Protection Act 1998;

(b) the Data Protection Tribunal constituted under that section, in respect of its jurisdiction under section 46 of that Act.")

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 64 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 86 and 87:
Page 37, line 17, at end insert—
("() sections 1 to 3,").
Page 37, line 20, leave out ("section 60,") and insert ("sections 60 to 62,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this group consists of Amendments Nos. 86 and 87. These amendments are technical. They bring the Bill's definition provisions into force on Royal Assent. That clarifies the basis upon which we will be making subordinate legislation once the Bill is passed but before it comes fully into force. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.

Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
7.40 p.m.
Lord Evans of Parkside: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill amends Section 12 of the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990. Before turning to why I believe
544
it needs amending in the way this Bill proposes, it may be helpful to the House if I explain what Section 12 of the principal Act does.
The section is concerned with precursor chemicals; that is, chemicals which are used in the manufacture of controlled drugs. The term "controlled drugs" has its usual meaning as those drugs which come within the scope of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.
Section 12 makes it an offence to manufacture or supply precursor chemicals, of which 22 are identified in the Act, knowing or suspecting that they are for the unlawful production of controlled drugs. The intention, therefore, is to prevent producers of illicit controlled drugs from obtaining the ingredients they need to make them.
There is also a system of licensing and registration for companies trading in precursor chemicals, which have many legitimate industrial uses besides the production of controlled drugs. This system regulates the manufacture and distribution of the chemicals, helps prevent their diversion and monitors international trade in them. It is replicated throughout the European Union by EC legislation and is mirrored in the other countries who are also parties to the 1988 United Nations convention against the illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.
For many years, and even before formal controls were introduced on precursor chemicals, the United Kingdom authorities have had a constructive relationship with the chemical industry. But in my view in one respect the industry has not had quite the protection it deserves when it has helped the authorities.
Consider the situation where a manufacturer of a precursor chemical, suspicious that an order he has received is destined for the unlawful production of a controlled drug, notifies the police of his concerns. The police, on considering the matter, take the view that it is indeed a suspicious order but that there is insufficient evidence to charge the person who has ordered the chemical with an offence. To secure sufficient evidence, they suggest that the manufacturer fulfils the order by supplying the chemical. But here is the rub. Under the law as it stands, as soon as the manufacturer supplies the chemical he commits an offence. It is of no help to him that he has done so at the request of the police as a good citizen. That cannot be right.
I understand that there is in practice an administrative arrangement which the police and the Crown Prosecution Service can employ in individual cases to give manufacturers who assist in such a way reassurance that they will not be prosecuted. I do not believe, however, that that is enough. What my Bill does is to provide a statutory safeguard. In terms, it states that:
"A person does not commit an offence … if he manufactures or … supplies the scheduled substance with the express consent of a constable".
My Bill provides a statutory safeguard to all those who are assisting the authorities in the continuous fight against illegal drug production.

545
The responsible trade deserves this safeguard and through this small and modest Bill would obtain it. I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Evans of Parkside.)
7.43 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Parkside, for introducing the Bill and for the careful way in which he explained its purpose. It is interesting to note that it took until the 1990 Act was passed to outlaw the production of precursor chemicals for the making of drugs. Yet it was as long ago as 1874 that a Mr. C. R. Alder Wright, in London, boiled morphine with acetic anhydride, which is the leading drug in the schedule to the Act, and produced diamorphine. Some years later, that was termed by a German scientist as heroin, being, as he thought, heroic in its attributes. That is one of the ways in which today's scourge in the drugs industry has been created.
Although the Bill is simple, it appears to provide protection for agents provocateurs, Therefore, one requires a little care in approaching its provisions. I recall a case some years ago from Hong Kong called Somchai Liangsiprasert, where the appellant who appeared in the Privy Council here was a Thai national. He was persuaded by an agent provocateur, the equivalent of the noble Lord's constable, a DEA agent in the United States, to hand over a substantial quantity of heroin. That heroin, handed over in Bangkok, was immediately taken under armed US Marine Guard to the American Embassy and from the embassy was taken by plane by agents into the United States. Mr. Somchai Liangsiprasert was charged with conspiracy to import the drugs into the United States. Of course, they went in under the auspices of the United States Government. He was subsequently convicted of conspiracy to traffic in drugs in Hong Kong because he went to Hong Kong to collect his money.
One of the possible side-effects of this simple amendment to the Act is that it could make it impossible to bring conspiracy charges against the person who supplied the drugs to the agent provocateur, because if the agent provocateur does not commit an offence under the provisions of the Bill it may be that conspiracy charges would not be available to the prosecution. One would need to look at that matter with care.
When one enters into consideration of such a delicate area of the criminal law, a certain amount of care must be taken. We will provide that as the Bill goes through its proper stages.
7. 47 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Parkside, for introducing the Bill with such clarity. It was most helpful to the House. We on these Benches support efforts to prevent and prosecute the abuse and misuse of drugs. We did so while in government and were responsible for introducing the original 1990 Act which
546
the noble Lord seeks to amend. We continue to support any attack on the trafficking in drugs. Drugs trafficking is indeed a menace to society. However, I also agree that where there is consensus between the main parties on action which should be taken it is sometimes perhaps all the more important to test the reasons why we are making changes in order to ensure that what we achieve is what we are intending. We must achieve the right policy intention underlying the proposed legislative changes.
Therefore, I have some questions to put to the noble Lord, Lord Evans, in the spirit of what I hope is helpful inquiry. Because I intend to be helpful, I gave advance notice of the general thrust of my questions. I note that the purpose of the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990 was to enable the United Kingdom to co-operate with other countries in investigations and criminal proceedings to implement the 1988 Vienna Convention against illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. It is therefore known as the Vienna Convention. It was also implemented to provide for seizure and detention and forfeiture of drug trafficking money which was imported or exported in cash. It had that dual objective.
The noble Lord has explained that Section 12(1) of that Act has a specific function. It makes it illegal for someone to manufacture a substance which is listed in the schedule accompanying the Act or to supply that substance to another person if he knows or suspects that the substance will be used for the unlawful production of a controlled drug.
The list of those specified substances is contained in the second table in Schedule 2 to the 1990 Act. Therefore, it includes such things as potassium permanganate and sulphuric acid—items which can be found in any school laboratory and can he used innocently. But, as the noble Lord pointed out, they can be used as part of the processes, as precursors, of the production of illegal drugs. That use would then be illegal under the 1990 Act.
The noble Lord explained why he feels that there is a loophole in the 1990 Act because manufacturers innocently going about their business may find that, quite unintentionally, they are being caught up in illegal trade as someone is trying to use the substances for illegal purposes. They try to be helpful to the police in sorting out the illegal side of it and securing a prosecution. At present, the problem is that they appear to be trapped and find themselves guilty of an absolute offence.
I read the discussions in Hansard on the original 1990 Bill. Mr. Butler raised that point and asked:
"If it becomes illegal knowingly to supply precursor substances, what happens if a manufacturing company which trades licitly has told the authorities of its suspicions and the authorities allow it to supply the chemicals to track down the clandestine laboratories? Would that manufacturing company still be liable to prosecution?"
The reply was given by my noble friend Lord Patten, who at that stage was a Member of another place. On advice he answered that no,
"large manufacturing undertakings involved at the beginning of the manufacturing process of precursor chemicals would not be liable in those circumstances".

547
It was the best understanding at the time that there was an administrative procedure by which the manufacturers would not become liable to prosecution in the circumstances which the noble Lord, Lord Evans, outlined this evening. I was therefore interested that the noble Lord said that it is now understood that such companies would be liable. I listened carefully to his explanation and I shall read it in Hansard. Moreover, I shall listen with interest to what the Minister has to say on the subject.
Of course, I agree that it would be wrong to have any situation created by statute whereby an innocent manufacturer was made guilty of an offence and had to rely on an administrative decision only not to prosecute if that were the case and we found that people were falling foul of the law. But if that is not the case and no one has got into difficulties, perhaps amendments are not required. We must consider that issue.
The question to which I have addressed myself is whether this Bill marks a shift away from the original policy intention underlying the 1990 Act, perhaps unwittingly. Certainly, having heard the noble Lord's explanation, I feel that any such shift would be unwitting. However, we need to be aware of our objectives and the possible consequences of what we do in relation to any amendment to the statute.
So far we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, that he has reservations as regards the Bill because he feels that it may open the door to agents provocateurs having the opportunity to exploit its provisions. The amendment provides that the express consent of a constable is sufficient to enable someone to escape prosecution. I am concerned that the way in which the Bill is phrased gives an opportunity for perhaps another use of the amendment other than that which the noble Lord seeks to achieve.
The Bill introduces police powers in such a way that the law, if it were amended by this Bill, could be used by the police to extend further their activities in the setting up of sting operations or using people as agents provocateurs, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said. I ask the Minister whether that is an unintended but possible consequence of the amendment. If it is unintended, is that acceptable? Is it argued that the Bill is needed in order to be able to obtain convictions which cannot be achieved otherwise? Do the Government have examples of occasions on which the prosecution of criminal activities has been frustrated for want of this amendment? Do we expect in future that the police will set up sting operations from scratch, seeking to entrap criminals into placing orders so that they can track down a line of production and sale of illicit drugs?
Entrapment is a delicate area. Perhaps the Minister will address himself to how far one should be able to promote it within a Bill. I note that entrapment is a defence in the United States but not so here. Therefore, I ask the Government what is their view about the propriety of using sting operations and just how extensive their use should be.
548
Does every police force in the country still have, as I believe was the case in 1990, a police officer who is a dedicated precursor chemical monitor whose job it is to keep in close contact with all licit chemical manufacturers on his patch? If so, do the Government expect that in operational terms they will be the officers who will grant the consent which is to be introduced by this Bill? Or would it be members of the drug squad or any constable at all of any police force in the country?
These are broad issues of principle and practice which are raised by the Bill and which we should consider seriously. I should be grateful to either the Minister or the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Parkside, for a response to those matters.
Finally, there is one aspect of the Bill which causes me concern. It may be that the Minister or the noble Lord can answer the question satisfactorily. If not, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Evans, will consider the matter between now and the Committee stage because it is a matter about which I am considering tabling an amendment.
I refer the House to line 10 of the Bill and the phrase,
"with the express consent of a constable".
Why is the terminology of the 1985 misuse of drugs regulations not used? Those regulations contain the phrase,
"a constable when acting in the course of his duty as such".
Would it not be better that that definition should be on the face of the Bill, given the sensitive and potentially extensive use of the amendment?
I suspect that we have all read reports of alleged corruption within the Metropolitan Police and the recycling of drugs by police officers, something I know the Metropolitan Police much regret. Therefore, is it right that we should agree to give a blanket right to a constable to grant consent for the manufacture or supply of scheduled substances? Surely it would be far better to make it clear right from the beginning that such consent can only give rise to legal activity if it is given while he is acting in the course of his duty.
Once again, I thank the noble Lord for introducing the Bill and of course we shall not oppose its Second Reading.
7.59 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Evans of Parkside for his introduction and explanation. We welcome the Bill. We believe that there should be a statutory safeguard against prosecution for those manufacturers and suppliers who assist in enforcement operations. It is perfectly true that the Crown Prosecution Service can, by arrangement with the police, give an undertaking that a manufacturer or supplier will not be prosecuted. We believe that that should be on a proper statutory basis.

549
The fact that this would then be provided for on a statutory basis as opposed to an administrative basis does not, therefore, alter the situation to which the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, referred. If one has administrative arrangements, the opportunity for misdeed and wrong behaviour is no greater than if one has a statutory basis.
I turn now to one or two points of detail that have been raised. The noble Baroness asked why the reference should not be to a constable in the execution of his duty. The precedents are in the Drug Trafficking Act 1994 where Section 51 relates particularly to a disclosure which is a defence if a prospective defendant makes disclosure before a particular act and,
"the act is done with the consent of the constable".
There is no restriction there to a constable acting in the execution of his duty; nor in the very serious circumstances of disclosure about the control of terrorists' funds. Again, the phrase is,
"acting with the express consent of a constable".
One can see the point. It is very difficult to expect a manufacturer or supplier who is trying to assist law protectors and law enforcers to establish—and I am not quite sure how this could be done—that the constable is, indeed, acting in the execution of his duty. If the constable is not, and acts in the corrupt way specified by the noble Baroness, criminal sanctions and internal disciplinary sanctions can be taken against him.
We do not believe that there should be too much detail in that respect. Many of these decisions must be made operationally by chief constables. We believe that a chief constable running his force properly must have a margin of discretion about who gives the authority in particular circumstances. It may well be an officer of relatively junior rank because, very often, they have enormous expertise on drug squads. In response to an observation made by the noble Baroness, I should point out that most police forces have specialist officers whose duties include the monitoring of precursor chemicals.
Entrapment, "sting" operations and the use of agents provocateurs are matters which need to be carefully defined. It is manifest from Home Office and ACPO guidelines that police officers, undercover officers, or informants should not act as agents provocateurs—that is, those who incite or counsel others to commit a crime which would not otherwise have been committed. Ultimately, if the police overstep the mark, the prosecution has to take a view and the courts can also take their own view, which they do quite robustly, about abuse of process.
However, it seems to me that that is different from what might be called, in the argot, a "sting" operation because they vary infinitely. Some sting operations are perfectly legitimate and lawful. If someone is offering to sell stolen goods, or large quantities of drugs, I personally see no objection in morality, in principle or
550
in law to an officer growing his hair and a beard, placing a ring in his nose or ear or any other appropriate part of his body—or, indeed, any inappropriate part of his body—and pretending to be Joe Bloggs. He will not go along and say, "By the way, I am Constable 343 Jones"—or indeed Williams—"will you please sell me these drugs?" Therefore, one has to be quite careful when talking about entrapment, "sting" operations and agents provocateurs. Police forces have to be astute and the CPS has to be very careful, as indeed do the courts, about abuse of process. As I said, the use of anyone as an agent provocateur is forbidden.
We believe that this is a useful Bill, which tidies up the law, because it gives protection to those who want to behave responsibly, lawfully and properly in assisting the police in what is a very dangerous area. I agree with what has been said. When one has a Bill which seems to have the approval of all corners of the House, that is the time when one needs to be particularly careful. As I said, we welcome the Bill and I am grateful to my noble friend for its introduction.
8.4 p.m.
Lord Evans of Parkside: My Lords, I should like to express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns for the comments that they have made on the Bill and for their broad welcome to it. I am especially grateful to the noble Baroness for giving notice of the points which she intended to raise. I should also like to thank my noble friend the Minister for explaining the Government's attitude. Of course, I shall accept the advice of my noble friend in that respect.
On the question of qualifying the definition of constable, I believe that my noble friend the Minister has given very sound reasons for using previous practice, which I certainly accept. The idea of the provision is that companies should feel comfortable when they are assisting the police in an operation to catch illicit drug manufacturers. To require them to satisfy themselves that the constable is executing his duty could, I believe, be counter-productive.
I understand and sympathise with the concern of the noble Baroness over sting operations. I also understand the noble Lord's anxiety about the use of agents provocateurs. However, it seems that they are worries which could apply to a range of operations and not just those involving precursor chemicals. I was reassured to hear that there is general guidance making it clear that police officers should not in any operations act as agents provocateurs. Of course, the final safeguard must be the courts.
I shall read most carefully what the noble Baroness and the noble Lord have said. I shall, indeed, study the Hansard report most carefully. If necessary, I shall be only too happy to consult with them and my noble friend the Minister as to how we should address such issues in Committee. I believe that the Committee stage could prove to be most interesting.

551
I earlier referred to the longstanding and constructive relationship which the UK enforcement authorities and the chemical industry have had. My Bill would help ensure that that important relationship endures into the future. It is important that it should if the pernicious business of unlawful manufacture of controlled drugs is going to be successfully combated. The Bill would provide just that hit of extra confidence for the industry. It is important that the industry should have that confidence given to it by Parliament. I very much hope that the Bill will find its way on to the statute book. I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Transport Policy and Railway Land
8.6 p.m.
Lord Cadman Lord Cadman rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether plans for an integrated transport policy are being forestalled by the continuing disposal of railway land.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the subject of my Question has arisen as a direct consequence of the privatisation of the railways, resulting in the new rail freight companies' success in attracting new business. Is this success to be frustrated by parts of the railway estate disappearing before their very eyes?
Following the passage of the Railways Act 1993, decisions were taken by British Rail as to which parts of its estate were to be regarded as operational or not. All operational land was, at the appropriate time, vested in the infrastructure provider, Railtrack Plc. Non-operational land remained in the hands of British Rail and is administered by its subsidiary company, Rail Property Limited. Much of this non-operational land consists of parts of long-closed routes and structures, some of which carry substantial liabilities. One can cite here as an example the architecturally elegant stone-built viaduct that dominates the village of Pensford, just south of Bristol, which was part of a route that served the once quite important Somerset coalfield.
Since British Rail had found itself unable to operate an economic freight service, much of that non-operational land also consisted of old station goods yards, marshalling yards, redundant junctions and sidings, much of which lies adjacent to existing operational routes. Unbelievably included were a flyover at Nuneaton and an underpass at Reading, both of which had to be withdrawn from potential disposal due to their strategic importance.
It was recognised some time ago that some sites which were being disposed of could well have a future role to play. Sites as far apart as Yatton in Somerset, Hereford and Workington in Cumbria have been offered for sale by RPL, despite their being identified as having freight use potential.
Much of the problem lies in the fact that in many cases the redevelopment value of a site for housing, a supermarket or whatever exceeds that for rail freight purposes. The recent episode at Battersea illustrates this
552
point well. It seems strange, does it not, that the industry is being invited to bid for sites—albeit assisted perhaps by a freight facilities grant—that have been put up for sale by a government company so that they can be retained within the railway estate despite the Government's stated aim that they wish to encourage the transfer of freight from road to rail?
It would appear that Department of Transport Ministers and officials still do not seem to realise that the potential for increased rail freight business is real and impending. There will be a need in the future for loading and storage facilities to be provided adjacent to existing railway routes and close enough to prospective customers for this potential to be realised. Here we have a government agency putting many sites that could be suitable up for sale.
With regard to redundant routes, some of these could well be considered for eventual reuse, especially in the vicinity of densely trafficked lines near known pinch points or to provide a diversionary route while serious work is undertaken to a main line, for example the west coast main line. As a topical example, in France abandoned lines are literally left to rot, with hardly any redevelopment taking place. This Easter in eastern France a pretty busy junction is to be closed down to enable a river bridge to be replaced. The SNCF has been able to set up a diversionary route to enable some traffic to avoid the area by reopening a route that was closed down some years ago. The fact that some track relaying has been involved on this route demonstrates the importance attached here to providing some continuity of service and the relative ease with which such a route can be put back into service.
It has been suggested that the department is constrained by the provisions of the Transport Acts of 1962 and 1968 which, it seems, required BR to act commercially and obliged it to obtain the best possible price for surplus assets. That may be so, but Section 27(1) of the 1962 Act states,
"The Minister may, after consultation with any Board, give to that Board directions of a general character as to the exercise and performance by the Board of their functions in relation to matters which appear to him to affect the national interest".
Section 28(4) of the same Act appears to allow the Minister to direct that under certain circumstances directions may so be given, notwithstanding that they may make it necessary for the board of British Rail to dispose of assets at a loss. Therefore perhaps there is some scope here.
It has also been stated that the Government have committed themselves to the public expenditure programme of the previous administration. Amazingly, these sales are deemed to be part of this programme and therefore all kinds of excuses are made to ensure that they take place. Obviously someone, somewhere needs the money. Of course all this is bad news for the industry and integrated transport generally and could possibly be regarded as a shambles. I hope that the Government will set up some kind of strategic rail authority. It is a pity that that is not up and running now because it should have the power to sort out situations like this.
The trouble is that once these sites are disposed of it will be well nigh impossible to get them back or even to replace them. Local authorities have a vital role to play here. It is imperative that they identify quickly within their planning programmes the need to provide for rail freight facilities. Strategic railway sites, whether for freight or passenger use, must be safeguarded so that rail can play its full part in any integrated policy. I wonder what guidance the Government can give to local authorities here because this is important.
It is encouraging that Rail Property Limited has agreed to circulate to all interested parties in future details of any sales as particulars become available. This will perhaps enable potential rail interests to get together with local authorities and convince them that this or that area has rail potential and so perhaps can be prevented from being redeveloped via the planning process and thus not lost to the rail industry.
I hope that the noble Baroness on the Front Bench can give us some encouragement this evening. I take this opportunity of thanking all those noble Lords who will take part in this debate.
8.13 p.m.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I start by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Cadman, on initiating this interesting debate. It is interesting to me. I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group. It is therefore appropriate that I concentrate my remarks on rail freight and debate how rail freight may or may not be affected by the land issue that the noble Lord, Lord Cadman, so eloquently discussed. He has obviously spent much time reading sales prospectuses of various sites which the property board still has on offer. Those prospectuses are glossy but one does not have much time to act in that regard.
I believe that rail freight is central to delivering the Government's transport policy. On the Government's own estimates, road congestion on many routes from, say, Preston to Maidstone will probably be gridlocked for many hours of the day within 15 years. However, freight will still have to be moved around. Much of it will still go by road as there is no practical alternative—certainly, no one would wish to change that—and road travel has a major role to play. However, much long distance freight can be carried by rail. That process has already started. After years of decline, rail freight traffic grew by 15 per cent. last year, excluding coal. Although the tonnage of coal has decreased, the tonnage carried per kilometre has increased as for some reason it is imported into Hunterston to be burnt in Didcot power station which is quite a long journey by rail. Of course that is good for the railways.
Last year, as part of the roads review, we made a suggestion to the Minister of Transport as regards lorries travelling over 200 kilometres. That is about the break-even distance between road and rail. Some 50 per cent. of the lorry freight in this country is carried on journeys of over 200 kilometres. We suggested that a proportion of those longer journeys could use the railways. We asked whether that would be possible and
554
what effect it would have. We calculated that if half of those longer journeys were made by rail that would require an extra thousand freight trains a day. That is roughly the same number as EWS runs at the moment. Connex South Eastern runs 2,000 trains a day. Railtrack has said that that goal is perfectly achievable given investment in the rolling stock and in the infrastructure. It would obviously have an enormously beneficial effect on road traffic congestion.
What is this new traffic we are discussing? I have mentioned coal. Aggregates and other bulk traffic take up an enormous share of rail freight. Rail freight's growth or decline is dependent on the economy and many outside influences, not the least of which is the price of gas relative to coal. The new traffic is traffic that was probably lost to the railways many decades ago. It is growing in partnership with the highly efficient logistics service providers who now mainly use road traffic. However, they are all keen to try rail. I give the House a few examples. There is waste disposal by rail from city centres. At the end of last year I had the privilege of launching a project to take Edinburgh's waste to Dunbar by train. Even on a 40 mile journey with a road stretch at each end, the scheme beat the competition. I refer to concrete batching plants in city centres and elsewhere supplied by rail. The noble Lord, Lord Cadman, mentioned Battersea which is a potential site for a concrete aggregates plant. Before Christmas we discovered that the rail property board preferred to sell the site in question to Battersea Dogs Home which does a wonderful job looking after stray dogs. However, it is my submission that whereas aggregates concrete plants should be connected by rail, dogs do not need to be connected by rail. There is a priority problem here.
The food and drink industry is starting to transport goods by rail, either for primary distribution or between distribution centres from supermarkets and manufacturers to other retail outlets. Chemicals and dangerous goods can be transferred by rail far more safely than by road. I refer in this connection to both domestic and cross-Channel routes.
What does it need to make what I term a "rail freight revolution" happen? There are many factors which noble Lords have mentioned on previous occasions. I refer to customer service, competitive price, investment in new rolling stock, traction and train paths through the rail network. All those factors must be brought into play and I believe that that will occur. However, the one thing rail cannot do without is terminals for loading and unloading. Otherwise we shall have a scenario, as in the case of the flying Dutchman, going round and round the world. Terminals cover anything from major international intermodal terminals, of which there are a welcome few, through special waste disposal, concrete aggregates plants, rail connected ports, terminals for general merchandise or food and drink, private terminals at factories, urban distribution centres and just flat land in parts of Scotland where timber is loaded on the main line.
There is great diversity. It cannot all take place in one place. One does not wish to have food and drink terminals next to a major chemical plant. It does not work. However, what they all have in common is the

555
need for land, with good road and rail connections and suitable planning zoning. Already, with the small growth to date, there is the problem of congestion in some existing terminals. That means delays. Customers do not like that. We hope that they do not take their trade away.
It is worth pointing out that virtually all factories and distribution and retail centres are connected to roads. It goes without saying that they have to have a road connection. Local authorities often take a great interest in those terminals. But not many now are rail connected; and not many now have the economic potential to be so connected. It is therefore important to preserve sites which exist at present even if they are not in use. The costs of taking freight by rail become more competitive with road freight if the factories or warehouses at one or both ends are rail connected. If they are not, it is important that the road legs of journeys are as short as possible. But the key is to be rail connected. It makes an enormous difference to the economics of competing with road freight. If rail freight is to increase by three to four times in the next 10 to 15 years, the provision of terminals is vital.
The noble Lord, Lord Cadman, mentioned the sale of its land by the British Railways Board. It is no great surprise to me. I never looked upon the board as a great friend of rail freight. The allocation of land took place in 1994. When Railtrack was given the operational land it was not over-endowed with land. The board probably kept most of the land for itself with a view to selling off the 2,000 sites, which the noble Lord mentioned, by, I believe, the end of this year. I find it surprising that the Government appear to be following the policy of the last government and encouraging the sales. The Government have changed. The transport policy—thank goodness—has changed. I hope that the Government can instruct the British Railways Board to slow down or pause a little.
First, the Government should consult widely with industry and those involved. After much prodding they are consulting with Railtrack. The examples given by the noble Lord, Lord Cadman, arose only because Railtrack said, "Hang on, we want these sites". Otherwise the flyover at Nuneaton would have become a municipal car park. EWS and Freightline were consulted. But, quite rightly, they have their own commercial agenda; and they do not always have the long term vision of others or the detailed knowledge of local authorities. Is it possible for the Government to instruct the board to delay sales until consultation has taken place? If a piece of land could be useful for future rail freight, can the board be instructed to hold off from selling a piece of land perhaps for three years until the strategic rail authority is set up, or other arrangements explored? It would not be right to instruct the board to sell land below market price; that might contravene the Transport Acts of 1962 and 1968. However, perhaps the board could hold off on the sale of the few parcels of land considered to be crucial for the rail freight industry.
We have been told by the Minister of Transport for London, Glenda Jackson, that this would risk breaching the financial duties imposed on British Rail by the two Acts. But who told the board suddenly to sell everything off, at sometimes knock down prices, apparently with
556
the intention of clearing the books by the end of this year, when it had not cleared its books for 30 years? What has changed? There must be an element of a government instruction here.
The land is potentially vital for the development and growth of the railways. The land—it is probably only 10 per cent. of the total area—is being sold as a tidying up process at the end of privatisation. If the sale goes ahead, it will inhibit growth, increase costs and reduce rail traffic. That means more traffic on the roads. I believe that those objectives are totally contrary to the present Government's transport strategy. I welcome the debate and look forward to hearing what the Minister says.
8.24 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I join in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Cadman, for introducing the debate. He and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, both speak with great expertise on the general issue of the contribution that railway land can make to an integrated national transport system.
I wish to concentrate on a particular aspect of the disposal of railway land: its use as a contribution to creating a national cycle network—part of a sustainable transport system for the future. I should declare an interest as one of the patrons of the cycle charity, Sustrans. With the help of a substantial millennium grant from the National Lottery, Sustrans is well on its way to its target of 2,500 miles of national cycle network by June 2000. Indeed, it now hopes to complete 3,000 miles by then and to go to a national network of 8,000 miles by the year 2005.
Disused railway lines have an important role to play in this remarkable project. Sustrans commenced building railway paths in 1979 with the 16 kilometre long Bristol and Bath path, which now carries over a million trips annually, both cyclists and ramblers. Old railway corridors are ideal for walkers and cyclists in that they give an easily graded and generally traffic free route.
Since that time Sustrans has worked closely with the local authorities and I think it is true to say that between them they have managed to keep intact all the length of railways which have been sold by British Rail. This includes nearly 150 miles of popular paths built by Sustrans. To some extent Sustrans is doing what some Members of your Lordships' House and another place called for in the great 1966 Beeching debates; namely, that the routes of railways pieced together at such great cost by the Victorians should be kept as a network of greenways for the nation.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, spoke with great authority about the problems of valuation of railway land. It is worth noting that by and large the value of the linear railways corridors is very small because what land values they might have are counterbalanced by the considerable liability of the viaducts, bridges and fencing. In selling the linear lines, British Rail is shedding itself of those very real costs, and I suppose that Sustrans is one of the very few organisations which sees those liabilities as assets because they give it the continuous route, free of traffic.

557
The larger areas comprising stations and former goods yards, about which the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, spoke, have a much greater value. It is those that in many ways are more of a loss today. As the noble Lord emphasised, those areas are seen as crucial for future freight termini in any resurgent railway system. I strongly support him in saying that those should be maintained and exploited in the national interest.
Sustrans is at present completing the acquisition of a list of largely fragmented pieces of railway line, each of which is an essential component of the longer routes that are being put together. It is most anxious to ensure that the fragmentation of the railways following the last government's privatisation should not lead to that residue being lost to public use.
If for some reason the transfer of the fragments of railway land in Sustrans' current list were to be delayed or halted, it would cause a real problem to the completion of the national cycle network. I hope to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Cadman, slightly on this particular point. Sustrans has reconfirmed on many occasions its willingness and determination to hold these fragments for possible railway use at some time in the future if so required. It will be resolving the difficult problem faced by Rail Property: namely, the proper care and maintenance of over 500 structures—bridges, viaducts and the like. It will aim to refurbish most of those during the construction of public paths over the next three or four years. It has good reason for doing so. While for Rail Property any such repair work is a drain on its now almost non-existent resources, for Sustrans it is the very purpose of the whole operation.
Sustrans is working closely with Railtrack on the development of the national network. It, in turn, has been working with the rail operating companies to check which sections of land might be required by them. So far as I know, the only pieces that they require have all been removed from the list being transferred to Sustrans. In the case of one, the route from Dumfries to Maxwelltown, provision has been made for the public path to run beside a single railway.
On all those projects, Sustrans is working closely with local authorities. It will not proceed with any works unless the local authority is satisfied that that is the best option for the railway land in question. That means that, to some extent, it is acting as a safe holding body while the Government make their policy decisions on the future retention of land and the wider issues raised by the debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Cadman. I might make the presumptuous remark that Sustrans may be a safer body to hold such land than either the local authorities, which are subject to many pressures and demands, or even—if I may say so with respect to the Minister who will reply—central government, who have not been notable in preventing the fragmentation of railway land over many years.
I simply wanted to plead with the Government that, in dealing with the more general issues raised by the noble Lords, Lord Cadman and Lord Berkeley, they will give a fair wind to the remarkable and imaginative concept of using disused railway lines in the way that I
558
have described. It is both ecologically and financially sound. It is a concept that should be of great benefit to the health of future generations.
8.32 p.m.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, 1, too, am grateful to my noble friend Lord Cadman for raising this issue. We all believe, or hope, that Britain is not alone in being close to the dawn of a new golden era for rail freight. We must do all we can to advance that particular cause. In this country, as abroad, the reasons speak for themselves. There are environmental reasons: the railway is green transport. There are the economic ones. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, mentioned some, but I always tend to think that one man moving perhaps 600 tonnes of tare is very much more productive than 10 or 20 men with tractor-trailer rigs. There are the negative costs of congestion. There is a safety dimension—when there is a major road accident, it tends to be overlooked; when there is a small railway accident, everyone is shouting, because we take the safety or our railways so much for granted. And of course there is privatisation—new money, new ideas. All those seem to be good reasons for anticipating and looking forward to a golden era.
One may take one's pick of the growth projections; there are many. But it seems to me that growth will be assured. However, to secure that growth, we must take steps to ensure, as other noble Lords said, that potential infrastructure is not prematurely disposed of. For a while at least we must go easy on the disposal of land which has or may have potential for terminal use. That is important whether we talk of a modest little terminal where swap bodies may be unloaded; whether we talk about a single siding, and not disconnecting or locking it out of use; or whether we talk of a major freight terminal.
I am somewhat reluctant to see a three-year blight on such sites, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. That period may be slightly too long. We must make up our minds much more quickly than that, if we can. However, I do feel that short-term blight is a necessary evil which must be accepted while we develop an integrated freight transport policy.
In fact, if I had one wish in this context, it would be that the forthcoming transport White Paper accepts that necessary evil. If the paper does nothing else but give us some breathing space, I for one shall welcome it.
8.35 p.m.
Lord Methuen: My Lords, I, too, welcome this debate, initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Cadman—coming, as it does, so soon after the debate introduced by my noble friend Lady Thomas of Walliswood. The close proximity of the two debates indicates the degree of interest in this House in an integrated transport policy with particular reference to railways. That was also borne out in the highly supportive attitude of the previous speakers.
I should first declare an interest as a sometime member of the railway signal engineering profession and a companion member of the Institution of Railway

559
Signal Engineers. I was active in the early 1960s, when there was a huge investment programme in the electrification of a number of lines, including the west coast mainline, and in the mechanisation of freight handling in automated marshalling yards. To the best of my knowledge, all the latter have been swept away with the concentration of freight traffic into train load operations.
I was pleased to see the optimistic forecasts by EWS, the Rail Freight Group and others for a significant growth in rail freight traffic volumes, although I fear that their most optimistic figures may result in rail freight traffic only a small percentage of that currently carried by HGVs. Perhaps the Minister can enlighten the House as to the respective tonne-kilometres that the DETR is forecasting for those two transport modes.
I also notice from the briefing given to us by the Rail Freight Group of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that there is at last a change in thinking away from the sole use of train load freight, and the re-introduction of wagonload and parcel traffic, and more encouragement for the use of private sidings, from which so much freight used to originate. However, does that mean that we now have once again a requirement for marshalling yards? Or how is it envisaged that wagonload traffic will be processed? Shall we also at last see the introduction of automatic coupling to a European standard for all freight traffic?
Like previous speakers, I am aghast at the wholesale disposal of central facilities for the handling of freight. I think we forget how numerous those facilities used to be. I can remember freight operations at High Street Kensington and Farringdon stations on the Underground, and steam freight trains on the Circle Line between Paddington and Smithfield in the early 1950s. That may have been overkill, given the position these days; however, it indicates the degree to which rail freight penetrated right into the heart of our cities. I am not expecting the revival of rail freight to result in such a spread of freight facilities as were available in those pre-Beeching days, but the point is that in many towns all land suitable for freight handling has been redeveloped.
But the disposals and closures of rail facilities have other repercussions. Last week, the Oakley viaduct on the Midland main line north of Bedford was closed for emergency repairs and the two tracks were removed to facilitate that work. Luckily, the four-track section which used to extend from St. Pancras to Trent Junction near Nottingham (with only limited two-track sections) was still in situ at Oakley, and hence the trains were able to be diverted onto the freight lines. Elsewhere on that line such an emergency would have had serious repercussions as much of the four-track permanent way has been reduced to three or only two tracks, and there are many bridges on that route and elsewhere where Railtrack could face similar problems with the Victorian engineering.
That example shows how the railways are existing by the skin of their teeth. In the old, pre-Beeching days there was a vast over-duplication of rail facilities resulting from the competitive rail environment that
560
British Rail inherited and which required rationalisation. That resulted in it being possible to re-route trains in the way mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Cadman, which is now largely impossible. It also provided additional paths for both passenger and freight traffic—a facility that we do not now have. If we wish to recover the lost freight traffic, it is essential that we preserve such mothballed and unsold railway lands with any potential for reuse and reinstate much of the four-track sections which enabled freight and passenger traffic to coexist on the same routes. It is all very well to say that freight will travel at 70 miles an hour, but surely our passenger traffic will travel at over 100 miles an hour? We need these additional tracks for safe, efficient and flexible operation.
The other plea I would make is for the retention of urban track beds for future light-rail usage. We have seen this in the Manchester area. Reading the Railway Gazette (which is available in the Salisbury Room), one sees how poor is our take-up of light rail compared with that of the rest of the world and in particular of Europe. I encourage the Minister to look favourably on such projects as a major pollution-free contributor to our integrated transport policy in this country.
I support the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, with regard to organisations such as Sustrans. In the Peak District we have several old railway lines which have been made into cycle tracks. I saw the lack of such a policy when I lived in Oxfordshire. The line from Banbury through Chipping Norton towards Cheltenham would have made an ideal cycle track, hut it has been sold off in bits, which makes that now totally impractical. One hopes that the proposed strategic rail authority will look at some of these matters.
Finally, can the Minister tell us why it is possible to safeguard land for road building but not existing railway lands for reuse? Does she not agree that the approach which the Government are taking sacrifices long-term interests for short-term financial gain?
8.41 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Cadman for asking this Question, which follows on naturally from our debate on 25th February on the state of the railways in general.
Everyone is agreed that it is desirable to put more freight on to rail and off the roads, even those, and perhaps particularly those, such as myself who count themselves fully paid-up members of the motoring lobby—and I suspect, after tomorrow, even more fully paid-up! Not only would a reduction in freight journeys on the road reduce congestion, it would also save the Government money on road maintenance as it is the heavy lorry that causes by far the most wear and tear to the roads. In the debate last month and today we have heard very encouraging forecasts of growth in rail freight, particularly from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, ranging from 50 per cent. to 200 per cent. in 10 years and even more over the longer term. Nevertheless, as freight overall is also forecast to grow, so the actual percentage of freight by rail will still be relatively small compared to freight by road, often for obvious practical

561
reasons, such as the inability to have a railway siding at every factory or supermarket. In the overall debate it is therefore important not to neglect roads altogether. Most freight carried by rail will still require a road journey at either end or both ends.
The problem of disposal of surplus railway land is, I admit, a difficult one. I intend to confine my remarks to freight use. Much as I enjoyed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, about the track, I believe the main problem is with land which was previously used for freight. The Minister said on 25th February (Hansard, col. 762) that planning guidance might be strengthened to protect land for future rail use. I suspect that many of the sites in question are so-called brownfield sites and so might also be suitable for new housing development if the Government are to meet their targets for new houses on such brownfield sites. There is a possible conflict here. It would be interesting if the Minister could say more about the use of the planning system in this context.
There is also the problem, such as with the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, where disposal of land for development forms an integral part of the financial package to build the link. If that land is not to be sold for development to the highest bidder, which may not be for railways use, the money will have to be found from somewhere else. I have seen a copy of a letter from the Deputy Prime Minister's Office to the managing director of EWS that reaffirms the Government's decision to stick to the previous government's public expenditure programme. The money is obviously not going to come from public funds, so where will it come from?
Returning to the planning issue, any new rail freight terminal on existing rail land, or an expansion of existing facilities, is bound to lead to an increase in road traffic in the immediate vicinity. This may well be unpopular with local residents and is a point that needs to be taken into consideration.
The planning process could work positively, and perhaps achieve the happy combination of a boost for rail freight and the best value from the sale of surplus land, if, where a site is to be sold for commercial development, such as a supermarket, planning permission could require a railway siding to be included. Perhaps it could go even further and require a certain proportion of deliveries to be made by rail to the site as a condition of planning approval.
The main difficulty in reserving railway land for future use for freight facilities appears to be the requirement of British Rail to sell surplus land at market value—in other words, to the best buyer. As has been said, once such land has gone for another type of development, it has almost certainly gone for ever. How does one weigh up the competing claims, one for actual commercial development now and the other for some hypothetical future need for rail freight development? What is in the best overall interests of the locality and the nation as a whole and will have the greatest impact on jobs and on the local economy? These questions are not easily solved and there is sometimes an alternative view.
562
I have no doubt that the Minister will say that we must await the conclusions of the White Paper on an integrated transport policy. I hope that the outcome might at least identify the main sites in question and perhaps put a hold on their sale, while letting other, less important sites go on the market. But it must be for the industry itself to decide whether the existing sites are necessarily the best ones or whether there might not be better sites elsewhere which have not yet been considered for development. I believe that the best solution of all would be for the railway industry to use its new-found access to private capital and its ability to look longer term than in pre-privatisation days and, where possible, to buy the sites for themselves. I look forward to the Minister's reply.
8.47 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, like other noble Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cadman, for raising this important issue. It is soon after our previous debate on the railways, but I believe that that reflects the wish, which the Government share with many noble Lords who have spoken tonight, to see an improvement in our rail services and to see more passengers and freight attracted to our railways.
We are committed to creating a truly integrated transport system, to strike a better balance between the various transport modes and to give people a real choice. Before we can do that, there are fundamental problems in our railway industry that we propose to address. The noble Lord, Lord Cadman, referred to the need for a strategic rail authority, and other more general issues have been raised by noble Lords tonight, but we have focused most on the specific areas raised in the noble Lord's Question about the continuing disposal of railway land and the uses to which it might be put.
The proposition has been put this evening that the Government should intervene to stop the British Railways Board, through its property arm, Rail Property Limited, from disposing of its remaining surplus sites. The Government's policy here, as with other areas of railway policy, has to be based on the situation we inherited, the situation that we found rather than the situation that we would have wished to find. We also inherited—and are committed to—the expenditure programme of the previous administration.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the Government did not inherit the public expenditure programme from the previous government. This Government decided to commit themselves to it. That is not the same thing as inheriting it; they had no obligation to do so.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I thought I had made clear by what I said that we inherited a set of figures. We are committed to, and made clear our commitment to, those figures. As the noble Lord is well aware, the receipts from the disposal of British rail land are part of that expenditure programme. We and British rail are bound by legislation.

563
The noble Lord, Lord Cadman, and my noble friend Lord Berkeley, cited the legislation by which BR could be directed in its management of property. However, that legislation was amended in part by the Railways Act 1993, which limited some of the actions we can take to those connected with railway privatisation, which is not an aim of this Government. Given that legislative position, BR has a duty to dispose of its assets at the best possible price. However, in relation to the site at Battersea, which I know is of concern to my noble friend, I understand that the company involved made an application for planning permission at an adjoining site. It may be that the interests of both rail freight and the dogs may be met within existing policies.
The other position we inherited—I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, will accept this—is that few significant sites now remain within BR ownership. BR's programme for disposing of surplus land has been ongoing for many years. Furthermore, when the previous government created Railtrack in 1994, Railtrack took not only the operational line, stations and land, but also those closed sites and lines which were thought to have a realistic prospect of reopening. I am pleased to say that, of those, traffic has returned to 25 routes since April 1994 and Railtrack believes that there is further potential for 41 other routes at some time in the future.
The Government recognise that some of the sites which did not appear to the previous administration to have a future for transport, may now have more potential. That does not mean that a site which served a railway purpose many years ago, will necessarily serve the different demands of railways or other modes of transport in the future. But, where a site has real potential for future rail use, we have sought to ensure that appropriate procedures are in place to identify it. The noble Lord, Lord Methuen, asked us to look favourably on light rail use, for example, on urban track beds. We recognise that light rail can be an effective means of transport in certain circumstances, such as the Manchester example to which he referred. We will be considering what role light rail will have in the context of the White Paper on integrated transport.
To return to the procedures which are in place to identify railway sites, BR gives Railtrack, other railway businesses and local authorities advance warning of sales so that they can bid if they choose. RPL has drawn to the attention of Railtrack around 450 sites which adjoin or are close to operational railways. RPL welcomes Railtrack's sharing of that information with other rail industry interests and also welcomes inquiries from the rail industry about sites, either specifically or general. RPL send auction catalogues to Freightliner as well as to Railtrack and AWS. Railtrack is now in negotiation with Rail Property Limited with a view to buying a number of sites, including lines at Acton. Colnbrook, Dumfries, Limehouse, Menstrie and Nuneaton. Railtrack also bid for sites at auction and has been successful in a number of cases. It recently purchased a 13-acre site on the east coast main line.
To turn to the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, most former track beds are in private or local authority ownership. However, it is
564
proposed to transfer a number of BR's remaining track beds—they have around 75 lengths mostly in short and isolated stretches—to Sustrans, the cycling charity. I can assure the noble Lord that we support those proposals. In that way, not only will provision be made for safe walking and cycling, but the integrity of the transport corridor will be maintained. As the noble Lord pointed out, it will be in safe hands. Though realistically we believe that few, if any, of the stretches of line going to Sustrans will have the potential to reopen as commercial railways, Sustrans will be under a covenant not to undertake work that would preclude the reinstatement of railway lines. It is therefore an extremely advantageous scheme and one that the Government are pleased to support.
The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, raised the issue of planning guidance. Current guidance already makes it clear that local authorities should consider the potential of disused track beds and routes for future transport schemes. As I said the other day, we are looking closely, in the context of integrated transport policy, at whether planning guidance might be strengthened to protect suitable land for future rail use. A fully revised draft of PPG12, which governs the issues, will be issued for public consultation later this year.
The Government believe that the procedures now in place are the right way to proceed. We are not prepared to distort competition or offer additional subsidies to Railtrack or other privatised members of the rail industry in the form of cheap land sold at the taxpayers' expense at less than market value. Nor are we prepared to risk distorting the property market or depressing prices for other RPL sites. I might add that EWS told us that it accepts the principle that British Rail land and property should be offered on the open market. Halting sales would mean sterilising and blighting land—a point recognised by the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans—even though we understand the anxieties that we should not lose out. But there are potentially different high priority uses, a point referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara. Blight leads to misuse such as fly-tipping, which imposes costs on the public purse.
In tonight's debate, as has been expected, emphasis was given to freight. The Government wish—as does my noble friend Lord Berkeley, and the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans—to see rail freight back at the heart of Britain's rail industry. An increase in rail's share of the freight market will be a key part to integrated transport policy for all the reasons outlined tonight. The new freight companies are winning new traffic on to rail. English, Welsh and Scottish Railways aims to triple traffic in 10 years; Freightliner aims to increase the volume of container traffic by 50 per cent. in five years.
I am not sure whether the detailed data asked for by the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, in relation to comparisons between different modes are available. Perhaps I may make inquiries and write to him on that point.
Railtrack is keen to meet the needs of the expanding rail freight market and protect land that has a realistic possibility of future freight demand. Its code of practice for freight, published last year, states that it will discuss

565
in advance with the rail freight industry, local authorities and other interested parties any proposed significant changes to its existing portfolio of land holdings that have realistic freight potential. Where that is the case, Railtrack will aim to preserve existing facilities or provide a suitable equivalent as well as considering new locations for investment to anticipate expected demand.
We already provide grants to industry towards the capital cost of rail freight equipment in cases where the traffic would otherwise be moved by road. We have taken measures to improve the freight facilities grant, not only in financial terms, but also by cutting the red tape associated with it. We have also secured commitments from the French Government and Eurotunnel to obtain a better deal for rail freight carried through the Channel Tunnel and beyond, not only by EWS, but also by potential new entrants to the market. In the context of the development of the integrated transport policy, we are considering what other measures might be introduced to encourage rail freight.
I noted the comments made by several noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, in relation to the value of smaller freight sites. But it is worth pointing out that nowadays freight operators seeking rail-based terminals usually need substantial parcels of land. Bulk
566
materials require space for loading, unloading and storage. In some circumstances processing plant must also be provided on site. In the intermodal sectors, space is needed for loading, unloading, lorry access and parking, and the provision of storage and warehouse facilities on site or nearby may be critical to the overall viability of the development. BR has few such sites. That is not to suggest that small sites are never of any interest, for instance, for single company terminals. But their potential for future rail freight depots is bound to be relatively constrained.
To sum up, we have taken action to boost the take-up of rail freight grants to transfer freight from road to rail, and we have beefed up next year's budget by £10 million to £40 million. We have ensured that BR routinely tells railway businesses of the sites coming up for auction and we are satisfied that in the context of the disposal of land Railtrack observes a strict code of practice.
I hope that what I have said tonight will reassure noble Lords that the Government are fully committed to the improvement of our freight and passenger railway services as part of our integrated transport strategy, and that the disposal of BR's surplus land does not jeopardise that policy, a policy that the Government fully intend to implement.
House adjourned at nine o'clock.

  Africa: Peacekeeping Forces
  Africa: Peacekeeping Forces
  Azerbaijan: Weapons Embargo
  Azerbaijan: Weapons Embargo
  Iraq: UN Resolution 1154
  Iraq: UN Resolution 1154
  Brookshaw v Chief Constable of North Wales
  Brookshaw v Chief Constable of North Wales
  Treasury Solicitor: Appearances by Trainees
  Treasury Solicitor: Appearances by Trainees
  Bone-in Beef Imports
  Bone-in Beef Imports
  Mr. James Penny
  Mr. James Penny
  Sheep Dipping: Advice Leaflet
  Sheep Dipping: Advice Leaflet
  Fruit Imports from USA
  Fruit Imports from USA
  BSE: Phillips Inquiry
  BSE: Phillips Inquiry
  Musical Instrument Tuition in Schools: Lottery Support
  Musical Instrument Tuition in Schools: Lottery Support
  Museums and Galleries: Funding Agreements
  Museums and Galleries: Funding Agreements
  Museums and Galleries: Loans of Works of Art
  Museums and Galleries: Loans of Works of Art
  Gulf Area: US Aircraft Operations
  Gulf Area: US Aircraft Operations
  Medical Assessment Programme
  Medical Assessment Programme
  Depleted Uranium Ammunition: 14th/20th King's Hussars
  Depleted Uranium Ammunition: 14th/20th King's Hussars
  Embarkation Control
  Embarkation Control
  Gambling among 16–18 Year-olds
  Gambling among 16–18 Year-olds
  Asylum Applications: Backlog
  Asylum Applications: Backlog
  Data Protection Act 1984 and Confessions to Crime
  Data Protection Act 1984 and Confessions to Crime
  Associations of Chief Police Officers
  Associations of Chief Police Officers
  Fire Casualties, England and Wales and Scotland
  Fire Casualties, England and Wales and Scotland
  Gunner Tom Ford
  Gunner Tom Ford
  Benefits Agency: Press Officers
  Benefits Agency: Press Officers
  Bahrain: Arms Export Licences
  Bahrain: Arms Export Licences
  Anglo-Scottish Electricity Interconnector
  Anglo-Scottish Electricity Interconnector
  Arms Sales
  Arms Sales
  Roadside Emission Testing
  Roadside Emission Testing
  Channel Tunnel Concession Agreement Extension
  Channel Tunnel Concession Agreement Extension
  Thorne and Hatfield Moors: Peat Extraction
  Thorne and Hatfield Moors: Peat Extraction
  The Planning System
  The Planning System
  Hand-held Phones: Use While Driving
  Hand-held Phones: Use While Driving
  Organophosphate Sheep Dips: Working Party Report
  Organophosphate Sheep Dips: Working Party Report
  Northern Ireland: Analysis of National Curriculum Tests 1994–97
  Northern Ireland: Analysis of National Curriculum Tests 1994–97
  Disability Discrimination Act 1995: Historic Buildings
  Disability Discrimination Act 1995: Historic Buildings
  England: Analysis of National Curriculum Tests 1994–1997
  England: Analysis of National Curriculum Tests 1994–1997