Sitting of 27 March 1998

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

    Minicabs (Regulation)
    9.35 am
    Dr. Jenny Tonge: This petition comes from more than 2,000 citizens of Kingston, Surbiton, Richmond Park and Twickenham. It states:
    The petition of the citizens of Kingston and Surbiton, Richmond Park and Twickenham declares that the petitioners are concerned at revelations that a convicted rapist has been working as a minicab driver in the Borough of Kingston until exposed.
    We note that outside London, 9 out of the 10 largest metropolitan areas have regulations requiring appropriate checks on a driver's criminal record, health, vehicle and topographical training.
    The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons pass legislation at the earliest possible opportunity to regulate London's minicab industry and the petitioners remain, etc.
    To lie upon the Table.

  Employment Rights (Dispute Resolution) Bill [Lords]
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [20 March], That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  Question again proposed.
  9.36 am
  Mr. James Gray: I am delighted to have a second opportunity to speak on the Bill's Third Reading, having been interrupted at 2.30 pm last Friday when, the nation will recall, I was saying how much the Opposition welcome the broad thrust of the legislation. When I mentioned that to a colleague this morning, he put me down by saying that since then the nation will doubtless have been holding its breath. I am glad to say that since then I have had a week off to write an extensive and detailed speech on the subject.
  I should re-emphasise that the Bill has cross-party support. It was introduced in another place by the noble Lord Archer of Sandwell. It was debated with a great deal of reasoned argument and was amended to some degree. The Opposition would argue that further amendments could have been introduced at that time or, indeed, on Report or in Committee in this place. We shall argue during this morning's discussions that although the Bill is a flawed diamond, it is a diamond. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey) for bringing the Bill before the House. He is to be congratulated on picking up and running with a measure which was extensively designed and consulted on by the previous Government.
  Last week, the House heard an excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen), who summarised our general support for the Bill. We also heard excellent speeches from my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), both of whom raised some concerns about the Bill, which we shall reiterate this morning. We shall do so not because anything can be done about them during the Bill's progress through Parliament, but because they might be taken into consideration by those who will have the onerous task of putting the Bill into operation—including the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service and others. This morning, we shall take the opportunity to raise one or two concerns about the way in which the Bill will operate.
  I also pay tribute to the work of my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Lang, who drafted the Bill and consulted on it when he was President of the Board of Trade. I am glad that that excellent work has been recognised by the Government, who have taken up the Bill more or less word for word and brought it into play.
  It is slightly regrettable that the Minister of State's support for the Bill, which he has gone to some length to voice over recent weeks, has not gone as far as allowing him to introduce the measure as a Government Bill. The Conservative Government did not have time to do that because the consultation period began in October and November 1996, and then, of course, the unfortunate event on 1 May prevented us from bringing the Bill before the House.
  Mr. John Healey: I remind the hon. Gentleman—and he may then recall—that there was an

  797
  opportunity for the previous Government to introduce the Bill between the end of consultation on the draft Bill and the Queen's Speech on 23 October 1996.
  Mr. Gray: There was indeed a short period between the end of consultation and the following Queen's Speech, although, now that Labour Members have the privilege of being in government after 18 years, they will know that draft legislation tends to be debated by the Ministerial Committee on Legislation in March or April, and that the Queen's Speech would have been drafted well in advance of the completion of consultation. None the less, the hon. Gentleman is right that, technically, the Conservative Government could have included the Bill in the Queen's Speech. It is certain, however, that the Queen's Speech in November was more than a year after the consultation, so the present Government could have included this worthwhile Bill in it, instead of some measures that we would argue were less desirable. Perhaps today is not the occasion to make cheap party political points across the Floor of the House. Broadly speaking, the Bill has the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  It is worth recording that the Conservative Government published a draft Bill in August or September 1996, and thereby introduced a useful new principle into the conduct of business. The publishing of draft Bills gives Back Benchers and the Opposition a good opportunity to consider the Bill properly before Second Reading. That is a first-class measure of the Conservative Government. I am very glad that the Labour Government have recognised the excellence of our idea and are running with it—although they are doing so slightly ungraciously, in claiming that the notion of draft Bills was their own. The Bill demonstrates that we thought of the notion and believed that it would be a good thing. Some thought that we ought not to publish draft Bills, so I am glad that the Labour Government are following our lead.
  In order to get Friday morning going, it is worth reminding the House of the Bill's broad principles. The Bill amends the law relating to the settlement of individual employment rights disputes. Industrial tribunals will be renamed employment tribunals—a relatively harmless exercise, but to be welcomed because the term is rather more positive. We are talking about employment, a good thing, rather than the slight flavour of a bad thing associated with industrial tribunals.
  The Bill permits new procedural rules to be introduced to streamline some tribunal procedures, and extends tribunals' jurisdiction. ACAS will be given power to draw up an arbitration scheme to settle unfair dismissal disputes, and the Secretary of State will be given power to extend that role to other areas of employment law if it becomes necessary or desirable.
  The Bill amends the law relating to compromise and dismissal procedures agreements, and extends the powers of conciliation officers. It also introduces measures to encourage the use by employees and employers of internal appeal procedures in cases of dismissal, and makes provision for compensation in cases of unfair dismissal that involve disability discrimination.
  The Bill has obtained the approval of ACAS, the Confederation of British Industry and the Institute of Directors. It must almost be unique in achieving the
  798
  approval of all three organisations. It is unusual for campaigning bodies to be silent when legislation affecting their main business is on the brink of reaching the statute book. Normally, we would hear such bodies saying that a measure either goes too far or does not go far enough. The only exception to the silence has been mild approbation from time to time, when the subject has drifted into such organisations' field of vision.
  Despite the silence, the Bill invests a significant amount of trust in the Government to adjust employment dispute procedures competently and fairly. Conservative Members very much hope that that trust is justified. I suspect that a huge quantity of change is about to occur in employment disputes, not least because of the minimum wage, economic and monetary union and the social chapter. All those factors will lead to a significant upturn in employment disputes. I hope that the Government will bring this new law into play in such disputes in a fair, sensible and just way, and that the trust that ACAS, the CBI, the IOD and others have put in them will prove well placed.
  The House is naturally greatly in favour of the notion of industrial tribunals; they are an important and valuable way of settling employment disputes, and I hope that they can continue to be so. To date, about 1 million cases have been settled by industrial tribunals at about 300,000 hearings, which is a significant amount of help to many employees and employers alike.
  One of the key points that we have raised since the publication of the draft Bill is that the industrial tribunal method of settling disputes should be easily accessible, informal, speedy and an inexpensive means of redress.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: Is not there a case to be made, however, for an even more informal and even less expensive way of dealing with disputes: allowing for greater elimination of disputes before they reach tribunals? Will my hon. Friend comment on whether an opportunity has been missed in the Bill? I know that some aspects of clause 13 partially address the matter.
  Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend is right; he touches on the main purpose of the Bill. The increase in the number of disputes over recent years and the clogging up of industrial tribunal procedures are precisely why the hon. Member for Wentworth introduced the Bill. He has tried to enable disputes to be settled more quickly and easily, and in a more accessible way. I shall in a moment make one or two mild criticisms of the Bill. Such changes would have made procedures even more accessible and speedy. My hon. Friend is right that the reason for the Bill is that the mechanisms have become slightly clogged up.
  There is a backlog of cases, and delays have risen to unacceptable levels. The Green Paper recognised that case loads had more than doubled, from 34,697 in 1989–90 to 71,661 in 1993–94. As a result, only 54 per cent. of complaints in England and Wales were heard in 26 weeks during 1993–94. Improvements thereafter raised the percentage of complaints heard only to 76 per cent. in 1995–96. The net result is that people are waiting more than half a year for the settlement of their disputes, which can lead them to become rancorous and unpleasant in their own minds. Their disputes could be settled perfectly happily and the rancour removed if disputes were heard more quickly.

  799
  Since the Green Paper was published, the number of cases has risen further. In 1996–97, there were 88,910 cases, and the number is forecast to reach more than 109,000 a year by the beginning of the millennium. That would be unacceptable in the present industrial tribunal set-up, so the purpose of the Bill is to enable the case load to be more easily heard.
  Mr. Anthony Steen: Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the problem, and the reason why the Bill has been introduced, is that there is too much legislation going through the House? As a result, more and more people will be entitled to their rights, which will put pressure on the system. In many ways, we are creating the problem.
  Mr. Gray: Although I would happily agree with the general libertarian instincts of my hon. Friend's intervention, I am not certain that libertarianism extends as far as removing individuals' rights. The purpose of an industrial tribunal is to ensure that individual rights are carefully and sensibly heard. My hon. Friend, like me, is the greatest possible libertarian; I am sure that he would not want the Bill to interfere in any way with individuals' rights to lead their lives free of interference by central Government.
  Rather contrary to what my hon. Friend said, I think that the reason why the case load has increased so significantly is the large increase in the number of discrimination cases, both racial and sexual. In 1993–94, discrimination cases amounted to only 8 per cent. of the total, but by 1995–96 that proportion had grown to 30 per cent.
  To introduce a degree of political antipathy across the Chamber for a moment, I must warn that the political correctness in everything that the new Labour Government do may lead to an increase in discrimination cases. I shudder to think what would happen if, for example—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. May I assist the hon. Gentleman? The House recognises an important distinction between Second and Third Reading debates. Whereas a debate on Second Reading may roam far and wide over what should or should not appear in the legislation, and over its general background, a Third Reading debate is strictly confined to the contents of the Bill that has progressed that far through the House.
  Mr. Gray: I am grateful for that clarification, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I merely thought that as it was a Friday morning, and people's minds may not have been on the subject since last week, it might be helpful to remind them—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that hon. Members will have done as I have, and read the wise words of the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) about the Bill last week.
  Mr. Gray: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, especially for your flattery in describing my words as wise. I shall accept your guidance and move on to the contents of the Bill rather than its general background.
  800
  In that context, I shall raise the Opposition's two or three reservations. Clearly, the details cannot be changed between now and Royal Assent, but our concerns may be taken into consideration by ACAS and others, or by the Government, when the Bill is being applied.
  Two or three of those concerns were raised by Opposition Members last week, and it may be worth my reiterating them now. First, the burden of proof seems to be veering towards the employer's having to prove that the employee is guilty, rather than the other way round. The approach should be even-handed between employer and employee, and there should be no burden of proof on either side. The people sitting in judgment should be able to make their minds up without forcing the employer, to a greater degree than the employee, to provide proof.
  Mr. Tim Collins: Will my hon. Friend reflect on the consequences, if the Bill becomes an Act, of its interaction with the minimum wage legislation that the House has recently passed? That legislation reverses the burden of proof, and would mean that an industrial tribunal operating under the Bill before us would be obliged to regard an employer as guilty of having broken the minimum wage law if he simply failed to have access to records proving that he had not done so.
  Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend is right. Having recently spent days and days on the National Minimum Wage Bill as it progressed through the House, he is far more of an expert on such matters than I could claim to be. He is right that the burden of proof is moving towards the employer, and that minimum wage cases will certainly bring extra pressure on industrial tribunals.
  As I have already said, I hope that the Government will find ways of ensuring that the clogging up of industrial tribunals does not become worse.
  On Second Reading last week, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough said:
  "the burden of proof is moving away from the person making the complaint to the person who is required to answer it".—[Official Report, 20 March 1998; Vol. 308, c. 1577.]
  He was right. By raising that issue, he began to question the basis on which tribunals work. I should like to see tribunals work on the basis of facts, rather than making judgments on the basis of bias or assumptions.
  There are several less important more technical amendments that we should have liked to be made, but sadly, the hon. Member for Wentworth has not accepted them. First, we are concerned about the meaning of the phrase "appropriate consent" in clause 4.
  We are also worried about the provisions that allow two judges rather than three to sit. My background is in shipping in the City of London, where extensive use is made of commercial arbitration of disputes that often involve many millions of pounds. There would never be such an arbitration with only two arbitrators. We would always have three, both because there would then always be a majority on one side of the dispute or the other, and because three arbitrators can bring greater wisdom to bear on the problem. If justice is not only to be done but to be seen to be done in industrial tribunals, it is regrettable that the Bill would allow a tribunal with only two members, one of whom would be the chairman.
  Equally, we regret the fact that the Bill has not taken up our suggestion in the consultation paper that, in addition to using ACAS, we should be allowed to use

  801
  private arbitration. The City of London uses private arbitration extensively. Two or three experienced business people in the area of concern—in my case, shipping—are set in judgment, a case is put to them, and they use their wisdom and experience to come to a just decision.
  There is no reason to presume that because arbitration is private, there is something wrong with it. It is also used extensively to sort out settlements in divorce cases these days. Therefore, it is regrettable that the Bill has intentionally removed the use of private arbitration from the gamut of weapons that tribunals can use. A Conservative Bill would have allowed both sides to agree to private arbitration, and we regret the fact that that possibility has gone.
  Leaving aside those small lacunae and qualifications, the Opposition welcome the speeding up of the process. Employment disputes will now be heard and settled more quickly. We are also pleased that the hon. Member for Wentworth, and doubtless the Government behind him, have recognised the excellence of the work done by Lord Lang when he was President of the Board of Trade and have taken up the draft Bill that we proposed and on which we consulted.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Wentworth on his work. The Bill is good—by and large, with a few small exceptions—and we believe that it will help in the process of industrial disputes taken through industrial tribunals. We hope that the House will welcome it.
  9.56 am
  Mr. Tim Collins: I pay tribute to the eloquence of my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) in speaking of the Bill as a whole. I shall confine my remarks to three specific clauses.
  Clause 3 provides for an important extension of the number of occasions on which it will be possible for decisions to be taken by a chairman acting alone rather than by three people sitting together.
  I have a constituency case under the existing industrial tribunal system, involving someone who has come to me to express his unhappiness with a decision taken under the existing provisions that already allow a chairman to act alone. That is why I am concerned about the great extension of the possibilities for one person to sit alone in judgment.
  My constituent told me that there was a personal antipathy between him and the chairman, and that the chairman had refused to listen to the evidence appropriately and properly. He believed that that man was at the very beginning of his career as a chairman of industrial tribunals, and was not experienced enough to understand the proper workings of the law.
  That is a matter which my constituent must pursue through various routes, including the law. None the less, it illustrates the potential dangers of a dramatic extension under clause 3 of the number of occasions on which a chairman acting alone can take decisions.
  I welcome clause 11, which will bring about an important extension in people's rights. It will build on the existing provisions whereby the Secretary of State can act as a guarantor of statutory redundancy payments if an
  802
  employer is insolvent, and extend them to cover situations in which there has been an agreement settling a dispute about such a statutory redundancy payment.
  However, clause 11 flags up another issue that has been brought to me by a different constituent, who was awarded a statutory redundancy payment some years ago. He worked for a partnership. One of the members of that partnership has been declared insolvent, but the other has not. The guidance that my constituent has received from Government officials and lawyers is that, until both partners are declared insolvent, the provision whereby the Secretary of State can step in to deal with statutory redundancy payment is not triggered. That is unjust, because there is no question of the payment being received, although it is clearly due. I hope that if the House considers further amendments to this legislation at a later date, it will consider closing that loophole.
  I welcome clause 13, which deals with the procedure for encouraging greater use of internal appeal procedures. That important matter enables me to raise a point expressed by an employer in Cumbria who is concerned about the way in which the tribunal process operates. That employer has built up a small business in the face of considerable economic adversity in some areas of south Cumbria over the past 10 years. Sadly, clause 13 does not sufficiently rebalance the effects of the existing legislation, and an appearance before an industrial tribunal presents a major difficulty for someone running a small business. For the two or three days on which that small business man had to make an appearance, staff had to be taken away from their normal functions—they were not serving customers or dealing with stock—and much of his senior management time was taken up preparing for the case.
  It is all very well for Governments to encourage people to start small businesses, but it is difficult to find people who are appropriately skilled or trained to take over when employers have to appear before an industrial tribunal. Clause 13 begins to address the point raised by the employer who came to see me, but it does not go far enough. He complained that, if an employer is taken before a tribunal, the proceedings of the case are reported in the local and sometimes even national press, and the company's reputation—perhaps even the employer's personal reputation—is blackened. Even if the employer's case is subsequently upheld by the tribunal, the company's commercial reputation is greatly damaged.
  Unfortunately, there is no equal sanction on the person making the complaint. He or she cannot lose. At best, the complainant will walk away with a substantial sum and, at worst, there will be no financial penalties whatever. The employer faces a different situation: at best, he will walk away with an unaltered financial position; at worst, his financial position and commercial reputation will be seriously impaired.
  Clause 13 encourages greater use of internal appeals procedures, which must be good. However, the Bill does not begin to redress the essential imbalance in the justice process.
  Mr. Nigel Waterson: Uncharacteristically, my hon. Friend is not being entirely even-handed in this matter. We have all seen cases in recent months and years, in which employees have taken their employers to tribunals with cases based on serious allegations, such

  803
  as sexual harassment, and the tribunals have clearly found that the employees had not given reliable evidence or had been telling lies. There should be a major sanction against employees taking cases to tribunals unjustifiably.
  Mr. Collins: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The issue that I was seeking to address, however, was that of costs. The Cumbrian employer who came to see me was concerned because the person making the complaint against him was receiving legal aid, incurred no costs whatever and was in a no-lose situation, whereas he felt that simply by being taken to the tribunal, he was a loser. His commercial reputation was damaged, as were the effectiveness and efficiency of his commercial operation.
  That is why clause 13 is welcome. It is one of the main reasons why the Bill is appropriately receiving bipartisan support. However, I hope that when the House reflects on those issues both later today and in the future, it will realise that, even after the passage of the Bill, the position will remain imperfect.
  Mr. Owen Paterson: I whole-heartedly endorse what my hon. Friend says about costs. It is a question not just of legal costs but of disruption costs. Any tribunal case causes disruption, particularly to a small business, whose key staff may be out for up to three days.
  Mr. Collins: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The House must deal with the issue of disruption costs. We now have a good system, which is reflected at the beginning of the Bill, of setting out a compliance cost assessment in every Bill that comes before the House.
  It is now a matter of bipartisan consensus that there should be more small businesses, and we all recognise that they are the engine of growth and job creation in the economy. Clause 13 goes some way towards striking a balance—but does not go far enough—between effective and efficient enforcement of employee rights, and the rights of employers to go about their business and to create jobs for existing and future employees.
  Although the Bill is a step in the right direction, we must go much further towards achieving real equity and justice and incentives to create jobs. I hope that the House will not fight shy of returning to that matter time and again until we have a system that meets the concerns that I have expressed and the problems that employees and employers in south Cumbria face. We need a system in which we can all feel a sense of pride and which will be an asset to our economy.
  10.6 am
  Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: I, too, support the Bill, but wish to express some reservations. First, I should like to pay tribute to the work of all those who serve on employment tribunals. Perhaps I should declare an interest, because my mother-in-law has been on industrial tribunals for many years, and I can vouch for her skill in settling disputes of all kinds. I should also mention that I have a small business and am well aware of the burdens placed on small businesses that my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) mentioned.
  804
  While it is right that employees should be given good and strong legal protection, that must be balanced against the need to encourage small businesses to take risks in a difficult world and, in the process, to create jobs. Unless jobs are created, there will be no rights to go with them.
  One of my concerns is that the Bill makes no clear distinction between the problems faced by small and large businesses, and does not consider the merits of placing a limit on the scale of awards against small businesses. The effect is that many small businesses, such as mine, have felt the need in recent years to take out specific insurance. Although it is not inexpensive, it is almost becoming due diligence for a small firm to take out such insurance because, without it, it faces the unquantifiable risk that a claim will be made that will not only disrupt the running of the business, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) mentioned, but, in extreme circumstances, might even lead to its closure if the scale of the award is severe enough.
  In such circumstances, while the business might be able to pull through, public knowledge of such an award would have a catastrophic effect on the business. Therefore, the risk-award profile for a small business in coming to an industrial tribunal differs greatly from that of a large firm.
  What are the terms of the insurance that a small business can take out? Typically, the small business would have to seek the advice of the insurers—before the insurer was prepared to back the business, it would have to be convinced that a proper internal procedure had been undertaken before a case came to an industrial tribunal. That means that when an insured small firm is considering an employee case, it would feel obliged to ring up the insurer for advice—the insurer would almost take the role of a personnel department. That could be a good thing; it may mean that small companies receive well-informed and conscientious advice, so that fewer disputes end up at a tribunal.
  As the balance of rights between employer and employee is increasingly shifting to the employee, insurers feel that, to maintain reasonable premiums that are in the reach of small firms, they must offer excessively cautious advice. Employers who think that they have a good case for dismissing an employee will be told by their insurer that, if the matter goes to a tribunal, they may not be covered by the insurance. In many cases, the Bill's provisions on insurance will not apply to small firms. If the Bill does not take account of the needs of small firms, it will be yet another piece of well-intentioned legislation which, in fact, inhibits job creation.
  Mr. Collins: Is not my hon. Friend's argument supported by the fact that, because employers find it easier to dismiss employees in the United States than in western Europe, there has, in the past 10 years, been much greater job creation in the United States than in western Europe?
  Mr. St. Aubyn: My hon. Friend makes a good point.
  Mr. Paterson: On the excellent point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins), does my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) agree that in America micro-businesses—which are defined as businesses with fewer than five employees—have created a huge proportion of the new jobs?
  Mr. St. Aubyn: My hon. Friends are very much to the point. As we have discovered over the past two decades,

  805
  a deregulated labour market creates a bigger labour market. The danger is that legislation, however well intentioned, may reduce the number of jobs. The concern about the Bill is not so much that small firms will not want to risk increasing the number of their employees, but that their inability to sack an unsatisfactory employee will inhibit the growth of the business—there will be, if I may use the phrase, a double whammy.
  Nevertheless, I urge hon. Members to support the Bill. It is a step in the right direction, although I do not believe that it goes far enough. Before long, the House will have to deal with the special requirements of small firms.
  10.13 am
  Mr. Christopher Fraser: In considering the Bill, we must recognise that, in today's global market, it is vital that we protect the viability of our industrial and commercial base. The importance of an harmonious working environment to the quality and quantity of industrial output cannot be overstated. I believe that industrial tribunals have contributed enormously to that environment. They are impartial and independent of the Government, trade unions and employers.
  As an employer, I know how important it is to have an easily accessible, informal, speedy and inexpensive means of adjudicating employment rights issues. Where possible, of course, parties should deal with disputes through in-house procedures. The advantages of that are not only the cost, but privacy and the enhancement of long-term employer-employee relationships.
  That is not always possible, however, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) pointed out, there are inherent problems in taking such a course. If the Bill streamlines the procedures of industrial tribunals and extends their jurisdiction, while encouraging the use of internal appeals procedures in cases of dismissal, I welcome and support it.
  As my hon. Friends have said, many of the Bill's measures were originally proposed by the previous Government, who recognised that the delays caused by the case load of industrial tribunals have increased significantly in recent years—in some parts of the country, the backlog is unacceptable. It is time to deal with that problem. In many ways, the Bill is the product of lengthy consultation undertaken by Lord Lang when he was President of the Board of Trade. At the time, he could not have anticipated the additional work load that will inevitably be created as a result both of the United Kingdom becoming a signatory to the social chapter and of the new Government's legislative programme.
  It matters not to me whether industrial tribunals are given another name. To call them "employment tribunals" may reflect the role that they now perform in dealing with employment rights disputes, rather than cases in which employees fought levies imposed under the Industrial Training Act 1982. Interestingly, the biggest increase in tribunal work has been in cases involving race and sex discrimination, and equal pay issues.
  The Bill would introduce far more important measures, which would do much to deal with the logjam. The proposal that a tribunal chairman may sit with only one other member must ensure that a conflict of personality
  806
  between the chairman and the person before him is overcome, as my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) said.
  I concur with my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) in the belief that it is a pity that the Conservative proposal for the use of private arbitrators has been rejected. There are some excellent private arbitrators, and I do not believe that it is necessary for the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service to have a monopoly in resolving disputes.
  I regret that the Government do not share my enthusiasm, and that of my hon. Friends, for private enterprise. Other measures proposed in a Green Paper issued in 1996 would also have been helpful. One must question why the Government do not support proposals to allow tribunals to dismiss a case during a substantive hearing if it becomes clear that the case will fail. One must also question why they do not allow the tribunal to award costs if a party has rejected a reasonable offer of settlement. The advantages of such positive measures would be less cost, the reduction of stress on employers and employees—which is of paramount importance—and the fact that petty cases would not burden the industrial tribunals system. Moreover, such proposals would enable intractable cases to be heard and dealt with more speedily.
  Perhaps the most important measure in the Bill is the one that relates to the alternative means of settling disputes. Under the Bill, parties in unfair dismissal disputes will be able to opt for independent, binding arbitration, which is currently limited to collective disputes. Parties must be encouraged to consider how to settle disputes—tribunals cannot be the only option. Both sides should benefit from arbitration. If it is quicker, cheaper, more private and more informal than a tribunal hearing, it must be a valid option.
  Mr. Swayne: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be if the Bill contained a provision under which a tribunal could refuse to hear a case unless the firm's internal procedures had been exhausted?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I say, for the benefit of the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), that when hon. Members want to intervene, they must rise in their place.
  Mr. Fraser: I agree with my hon. Friend. I am aware that concerns have been expressed about arbitration. Two parallel systems of justice could emerge. One would be arbitration—private, with no right of appeal—and the other public tribunals governed by a body of law and with the right of appeal. A situation could emerge in which no one would choose arbitration without the right of appeal against perverse decisions.
  I broadly welcome the Bill, because the employment rights that it offers would at least go some way to alleviate some problems of employment law and the problems that we now face when we employ people. However, some of my concerns have not been dealt with, and I strongly advocate flexible arrangements to deal with the challenging future in employment.
  10.19 am
  Mr. Nigel Evans: I did not intend to speak on the Bill, but, having listened to the debate, I feel it necessary to make a small contribution and to declare

  807
  an interest as an employer with a small convenience store in Swansea, which has been in the family since the 1920s. Three generations of my family have owned the store, and, since I became a Member of Parliament in 1992, my sister has taken charge of the day-to-day running. We employ eight people. In the 1960s, when my father and grandfather ran the store as a family concern—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is not the "History of Private Business" Bill.
  Mr. Evans: No, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it is important to stress what is happening with small businesses and explain that in the 1960s we did not employ anyone—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member again, but this is a Third Reading debate. He should have made points on the background on Second Reading. On Third Reading, he must confine himself to the contents of the Bill, and that is what I want to hear.
  Mr. Evans: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was merely trying to explain that I am an employer. We mainly employ part-timers and there is a large throughput of staff, some of whom come for only six or nine months, while others have been employed for more than 14 years and would be covered by unfair dismissal procedures. In the main, we have been extremely lucky in the people we have employed. However, we are a family business, not professionals, and the people we employ do not go through the stringent interview procedures that one might find in a larger business. Therefore, I am considering the prospect of a small family firm being taken to a tribunal, because of the Bill, by someone who claims to have been unfairly dismissed, although the firm thought the dismissal fair.
  Our business is typical, and there are thousands of small convenience stores and small businesses. Many operate on the margins and would normally be one-man bands, but have taken on one or two people to help. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser) mentioned the stress for employees, but employers also face enormous stress. When we take people on, we worry that we might be taking on future problems and costs over and above those that we have already accrued by employing them. Obviously, we want to establish a procedure that will be fair to everyone. If employees who were unfairly dismissed could not seek redress from a tribunal it would be wrong, as employers could be become tyrannical and dismiss people without good cause. There has to be a procedure whereby employees are protected.
  Mr. Collins: Does my hon. Friend agree that clause 13, which encourages the use of internal appeals as the first stage, is an important element in what he advocates, which is the chance for employees and employers to resolve disputes without recourse to a tribunal? Does he further agree that, as many right hon. and hon. Members have said, the clause does not go far enough because we need to entrench the idea that the use of an internal appeals procedure should be expected before one goes down the expensive and difficult route of a tribunal?
  Mr. Evans: I think that my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) referred to that.
  808
  I hope that when difficulties arise between employers and employees they can be resolved amicably and reasonably, but that will not always be possible. For all sorts of personal reasons, perhaps, they may simply not be compatible—something they might not at first have realised. In small business, small rows break out, almost like family rows or rows between neighbours. One of the worst things that Members of Parliament have to contend with are disputes between neighbours, some of which are insoluble.
  In a small firm, when a dispute breaks out between employer and employee, often it cannot be solved internally. If the small business is very small, no internal device or procedure will be available. In my business, none would be. As the owner, I would be called on to deal with a problem, but it might have arisen between my sister and an employee. I suppose that I would have to adjudicate, but it would be extremely difficult to take sides between an employee and my sister. How could I give a vote of no confidence in the person I have put in charge of running my business? I should hate to go home at Christmas if that happened.
  Mr. Gray: It is interesting to hear the history of the Evans family. Might my hon. Friend not take a leaf out of the book of my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) and get his mother-in-law to sort out such disputes?
  Mr. Evans: I am in the happy, or unhappy, situation of not being able to draw on my mother-in-law to sort out my disputes. One needs someone who knows the business—someone who could be called on to give expert advice, but at reasonable cost. In the 1980s, my business made hardly any money. In some years, we made a loss and had to draw on the family to do extra hours, as we could not afford to pay overtime.
  Insurance is a great thing and can save businesses extra money in the long run, but, as one lady told me this morning, a tremendous number of people do not even have home contents insurance; and it is not merely because they are taking a risk. In many cases, they cannot afford it—it can cost £200 or £300 a year. People running small family businesses in lean times will be tempted to cut costs. For example, their insurance might not cover internal disputes, but if a dispute arose and they sought legal advice, it would cost money. Either way, the small business loses and, in lean times, the employer has no choice.
  Employers have to be properly represented, particularly as the employee has recourse to legal advice through legal aid. That seems unfair. While the business might not be making any money, I suspect that the owner would not be eligible to legal aid and would have to contest the case himself. It could come to a point where the employer was no longer concentrating on running his business, but thinking solely of the dispute, briefing himself, as busily as he could, as an amateur on the law and probably seeking advice from customers and business associates.
  Mr. Fraser: Does my hon. Friend agree that when there is a dispute between employer and employee in a small business, it is inevitably the employer who compromises himself to deal with the problem in the way he sees fit, which may not be the most appropriate to himself, simply to overcome the problem of an employee

  809
  walking out or not doing the job properly? That is inherently unfair on the person running the business and putting in the time and money to ensure that other people are in gainful employment.
  Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend is right. If I were confronted with such a problem I could not afford to go to court. There are no two ways about it: I would have to compromise and cave in all down the line. I would have to employ someone I do not want or trust because he had recourse to funding through the taxpayer—I would pay for him, but could not afford to pay for myself. The dispute would not be solved, but would fester for years. We must strike a balance.
  The Bill goes some way to providing for disputes to be resolved internally—internal solutions should be exhausted before having recourse to law—but there must be protection for the employer. The balance has shifted too far one way for small businesses.
  I am vice-chairman of the Small Business Bureau, so I have contacts with many small businesses, in which I have been interested since I was elected to the House. In the 1980s, dynamic small firms took on more people and helped the economy to grow. We must hope that they take on more people in the 1990s to achieve a booming and growing economy. We cannot rely as much on industries that employ 10,000 and 15,000 as we did in the past. British Aerospace operates in my constituency, and its personnel department has a procedure for sorting out internal disputes, but my business does not have a personnel department other than my sister, who is a one-man personnel department.
  Mr. Fraser: I am a director of the Small Business Bureau. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should discuss those issues with the SBB, because it leads the field in understanding employment rights in small businesses and is recognised across the country for that? Does he also agree that we should be worse off if the Government did not consult it?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Those remarks stray beyond the compass of the Bill. I must ask the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) to stick to the terms of the Bill, which is receiving its Third Reading.
  Mr. Evans: I shall not address the point, other than to say that the Small Business Bureau considers employment protection as well as protection of employers.
  Organisations such as the Small Business Bureau, the Federation of Small Businesses, the Institute of Directors and the Confederation of British Industry have small business departments because they recognise the importance of small businesses, want to strike the correct balance, and want employees to have the right protection. They do not want to shift the balance against employees.
  I do not want the law to be altered in such a way that employers would be deterred from taking the risk of employing someone. The new deal involves taking on people who have been unemployed for more than six months. The Government are asking employers to have faith in them and in the unemployed, especially the young
  810
  unemployed aged between 18 and 24 who have had difficulty getting jobs, and to take them on and keep them on.
  We do not want people to be taken on for only six months, only to be foisted back on the unemployment register; that would be useless. We want them to be employed for more than six months, or for more than two years, which is the point at which employment rights protection comes in, to break the cycle.
  We do not want businesses to be deterred from taking people on. We want small businesses to get involved in the new deal and to take people on with a subsidy of £60 a week, but they will be cautious if they think that employment disputes might involve thousands of pounds in compensation and legal costs.
  I welcome the Bill and wish it well, but the Government should consider fresh measures that would protect employers and employees. Striking the right balance would ensure that small businesses could take on far more people.
  10.34 am
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: The Bill enjoys cross-party support and there are a number of enthusiasts for it, but it contains defects. I wish to draw your attention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to four of them.
  First, the Bill does not require parties to a dispute to exhaust other avenues before going to the tribunal. Clause 13 allows the tribunal to reduce the award to the successful party if other avenues have not been exhausted.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman may have heard what I said earlier. To stay in order during a Third Reading debate, hon. Members must refer to what is in the Bill, not what they would have liked to be in it. Such matters are dealt with on Second Reading. I want to hear only the hon. Gentleman's views on what is in the Bill.
  Mr. Swayne: In that case, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall draw my remarks to a swift close.
  10.35 am
  Mr. Owen Paterson: I shall do my level best to keep within your strictures, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey) on taking the Bill so far on behalf of Lord Archer of Sandwell. It is a great honour to take a private Member's Bill so far, and he is a tantalisingly short distance from achieving Third Reading.
  The Bill has been discussed against a background of excellent industrial relations over the past few years and extraordinarily successful growth in employment in western Europe. As my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) said, perhaps only America has a better industrial relations scene.
  I have been an employer and I am concerned about employers' attitude to tribunals. I do not want to rake over what I said on Second Reading, but it is vital that hon. Members understand that many employers do not think that taking a case to the tribunal is worth the candle. Many cases are resolved out of court or before the tribunal sits, often to the disadvantage of the company.

  811
  I shall not discuss the cases that I discussed last week, but I have received a lot of comment on them. I echo strongly the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale: employers are put off going to the tribunal for reasons other than legal costs. Tribunals began as a quick, cheap and easy way for lay members to resolve disputes. Sadly, lawyers have become more involved in recent years. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) is safely in China as a member of a parliamentary delegation, so I can be rude about lawyers, who are costly and are driving out the lay element in tribunals.
  Lay members do not often contribute much to tribunals. Unions hire highly skilled lawyers to represent the plaintiff, and employers, if they go to the tribunal, are forced to take expensive legal advice. It is regrettable that we have gone a long way from the concept of lay people using common sense to sort out disputes quickly. The process has become horrendously lengthy since lawyers became involved and there are six-month delays, which are exactly what we do not want.
  I strongly support the Bill's aim of speeding up the process and resolving disputes in a reasonable time, but I am worried that an even greater burden of proof will be placed on employers. That will also have a negative effect, because employers will be cynical and throw in the towel early. People will not want to take on labour, which was the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), a splendid small business man from Swansea, who spoke for thousands of small business people who want to take on labour.
  Last week, I talked to a plumber in Ellesmere who would like to take on another employee, because he has the work, but he is put off by the legislation, the form filling and the honor—in a small town—of possibly having to dismiss and get into a legal tangle with someone whom he knows well. That is a real danger, and I hope that Ministers are listening carefully.
  Mr. Evans: Some people think that insurance is the answer, but, even if small business could afford the insurance premiums, the problem is that insurance companies can start to dictate the employment rights offered. I say that as someone who has experience of fire insurance for business. The insurance people come in and dictate to the business people what has to be done before they are even allowed to pay the insurance premiums. What does my hon. Friend think about the dictates of the insurance companies on employment rights?
  Mr. Paterson: That is a most interesting intervention, because such behaviour by insurance companies would run counter to what we are all trying to achieve-the smoothest possible industrial relations with the minimum of interference from outside. It would be a most retrograde development if insurance companies could lay down the conditions on which an employee could be taken on. It would be yet another horrific psychological barrier to the plumber who has enough business to take on an assistant. As well as conforming to the legislation, the plumber would have to undertake not to infringe numerous insurance documents; that would be a worrying development.
  I am concerned that, at Third Reading, the Bill still does not address the inconsistencies of tribunal decisions. It is bizarre, for instance, that holiday pay is a matter for
  812
  industrial tribunals in Scotland but not in England. There is not an employee in the country who is not involved in discussions on holiday pay. That is only one of the flagrant and gross inconsistencies. I am concerned that the Bill, which is intended to speed matters up, may lead to even more inconsistencies in judgments. Nothing in the Bill provides for a review mechanism to ensure that judgments are kept on track. I could cite numerous other instances in which, because of the sheer number of cases, judgments are taking different directions in different parts of the country, according to the decisions of individual tribunals.
  Mr. Collins: Does my hon. Friend agree that that problem is likely to be exacerbated by clause 3, which will increase the number of occasions on which a decision is taken by only one person, instead of three, which is more likely to balance out any individual idiosyncrasies? Judgments made by one person could be more arbitrary and subject to his or her personal characteristics or mood.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) has heard that argument deployed already in an earlier speech.
  Mr. Paterson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall be most careful in how I reply.
  The Bill, in introducing decision making by individual chairmen, will exacerbate the problem that my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale mentions. Without a review mechanism, the House will soon have to revisit the question.
  My final, short point is that, in my experience, we have very good industrial relations, but many people who serve on industrial tribunals are out of date. People might accuse me of agism—
  Mr. St. Aubyn: I am sure that my hon. Friend recognises that with age comes not only experience but wisdom. Those assets are much needed on industrial tribunals.
  Mr. Paterson: I have no intention of casting aspersions on my hon. Friend's mother-in-law. However, many people on tribunals come from another age. They are elderly trade union officials nearing retirement, or ex-personnel managers, and they pick up £150 a day for their time. Not enough young people serve on tribunals who could bring their current experience to bear. [Interruption.] My hon. Friends may laugh, but I have no intention of attacking mothers-in-law or members of their generation who give their time. The Bill should contain provisions to attract younger people, with contemporary experience of how good our industrial relations now are.
  With those reservations, I accept that the gist of the Bill is in the right direction and I congratulate the hon. Member for Wentworth on bringing it forward.
  10.45 am
  Mr. Anthony Steen: Last week, I had the honour and privilege of speaking from the Front Bench on the Bill. I thought that that was the highest honour I would achieve and that I could then relax and permanently retire to the Back Benches. Unfortunately, either because of the quality of my performance or

  813
  because of a shortage of colleagues who were prepared to do a stint on a Friday, I find myself speaking from the Front Bench yet again. I hope that my hon. Friends and other hon. Members will bear with me for a second time for another modest contribution.
  Mr. David Jamieson: Long overdue.
  Mr. Steen: I am sure that Opposition Members entirely agree with the Government Whip.
  The raison d'etre for Members of Parliament is to pass laws. We are law makers and that is the task that we are expected to perform. It is the main, if not the only, reason we are here. We are certainly well practised in the task. Since 1979, we have passed 220,000 pages of law—just short of a quarter of a million. We are clearly becoming more efficient at passing laws, because we have passed 112 volumes of statute law since 1945, compared with fewer than 300 volumes in the previous 235 years. We are speeding up making laws and we are passing more and more pages of law. Like a sausage machine, the procedure is becoming more automated and working faster and faster—with the possible exception of this Bill.
  Do all those laws make things better? Do they make people's lives easier or more difficult? The Opposition support the Bill because we believe that it will make things better for people and because it has a deregulatory flavour. That deregulatory initiative was started by us when we were in government. The Bill's general thrust is to reduce bureaucracy in the resolution of disputes between employers and employees.
  Mr. Eric Forth: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Steen: If my right hon. Friend insists.
  Mr. Forth: I am, as ever, grateful to my hon. Friend. Is my hon. Friend arguing that, when a measure is essentially deregulatory, it is likely to be beneficial to people, and that the converse applies—if regulation, intervention, bureaucracy or the activities of politicians or Governments are increased, the measure is likely not to be beneficial?
  Mr. Steen: That was first intervention that I have taken from my right hon. Friend, and it was spot on; he is known always to hit the bull's-eye. Legislation should be passed to reduce bureaucracy and administrative delay and to make life more efficient, more constructive, easier and happier.
  There is a major difference between the Government and us in theory, although it can be seen in practice as well. The Government and their supporters tend to believe that passing more laws will solve problems; our experience is that it creates more problems. Constituents ask for laws to solve one problem, but that often creates others.
  We welcome the Bill because we believe that it will reduce pressure on employers and employees to seek the help of the courts or of what are to be called employment tribunals. It tries to divert disputes between employees
  814
  and employers from formal regulatory measures to informal procedures in companies or at arbitration. That will reduce bureaucracy, rules and regulations and consequential problems. I therefore support the thrust of the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).
  All developed societies have grievance procedures. There has always been a remedy in law for when employee-employer relationships go wrong. Until just after the second world war, going to court was the way to do it. That was expensive, daunting and often disadvantageous to employees in seeking future employment and references.
  I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), who gave us a grand tour, with certain restrictions, on the issues that the Bill addresses. I am grateful to him for giving us his professional assessment of the effect of the Bill. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser), who made some perceptive interjections, as did my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), whose speech was somewhat truncated.
  Tribunals safeguard the rights of employees. Although the majority of employers are good, there will always be a minority who take advantage of their employees. There is a converse to that. We always talk about the rights of employees. We should talk about the rights and duties not only of employees but of employers; it works both ways. It is always presumed that the employee is disadvantaged. Having heard my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), I think that some employers may be disadvantaged. We must keep a balance in employment law by realising that it is not always the employer who is at fault.
  Labour Members will be interested in these figures: in 1974, 14,750,000 working days were lost to strikes; in 1996, there were only 1,303,000. Collective relations have dramatically improved over those 22 years. There will always be problems between individual employees and employers. The increasing recognition of individual rights has increased the number of applications to industrial tribunals. I stress the word "rights", because it is not individual responsibilities but individual rights that have led to the 90,000 applications a year to industrial tribunals. There is no converse right for employers to go to industrial tribunals to complain about their employees. It is only one way, as if employees are the only ones who can be disadvantaged.
  It was the growth in the number of applications and the ensuing backlog of cases that prompted our Government to examine the matter and to produce the broad and enlightened approach before the House. That is the right approach. I pay tribute to this Government for picking up the ball and running with it, and making one or two alterations to give it their own distinctive flavour. There are differences between today's Bill and the draft Bill published in 1996, such as the refusal to allow for private, independent arbitration. Instead, the scheme is wholly in the hands of the Government-run Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service. The Government think that that will be an improvement; the Opposition think that the opportunity for private arbitration would have been better.
  In its fundamental principles, this Bill is the same as the draft Bill published by the previous Government. Throughout history, we have seen invaders tearing down

  815
  existing religious buildings, replacing them with their own places of worship on the same site and proudly proclaiming those as their temples and churches. So, too, has the Labour party, in conquering the electorate last May, proudly claimed this Bill as its own. In fact, it was largely we, the vanquished, who designed it. We pay tribute to the conqueror, but it would be nice if the conqueror would recognise in his winding-up speech that it is essentially our church.
  The Bill is in three parts: it reforms the procedure of industrial tribunals, which will be known as employment tribunals; it legislates for an alternative methods of settling disputes between employer and employees; and it will ensure that internal appeal procedures are more widely used. It would not be appropriate to list all the clauses, as has been done before. We all know what they are. As there is other business, I do not want go through them in detail.
  The Bill is largely based on proposals drawn up and sent for consultation by our Government. It will improve the methods by which grievances between employers and employees can be settled. We believe that the Bill could have been improved. My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West was to have explained how, and we look forward to hearing him on another occasion. We should have liked to maintain the freedom of choice for parties to go a private, independent arbitrator, but that aspect will be run by the public sector.
  Conservative Members tabled several amendments that illustrated the quality of those Members. We were all greatly impressed today by the quality of their contributions. I have not often sat on the Front Bench; on the Back Benches one does not listen in the same way. The quality of their speeches, especially those of the newer Members, was first rate—that does not necessarily mean the more youthful Members, but it certainly applies to the newer ones.
  Mr. David Maclean: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Steen: I give way to one of the older Members.
  Mr. Maclean: On behalf of those of us on the Back Benches, may I note the quality of the speech that we have been delighted to hear from the Front Bench?
  Mr. Steen: That was clearly an interjection by a politician. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend.
  We are disappointed that the Government did not feel able to improve the Bill in the way we suggested. As a dispassionate observer, I thought that certain amendments would have improved the Bill, particularly those concerning the burden of proof, which should be neutral. Perhaps an annexure or appendix could be added to the Bill to deal with some of the matters raised in unsuccessful amendments.
  In my experience of the House, Bills discussed on the Floor of the House get shorter, while powers in them are dealt with by statutory instrument and by codes of conduct initiated elsewhere. Perhaps a code of conduct or method of practice could be attached to the Bill to deal with the content of certain amendments. For example, we sought to ensure that, where a case was decided by written evidence alone, there would be a greater safeguard to ensure that
  816
  both sides had received independent and competent advice on the consequence of not giving oral evidence. In addition, we sought to provide a safeguard so that if a lay member of a tribunal failed to attend the tribunal at any stage, the hearing could go ahead even without permission from all parties. Could that be attached to the Bill?
  The role played by legal officers was mentioned. The relevant Minister from the Department of Trade and Industry is not here today. There are so many Ministers that the Government can churn them out, but I am glad that the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd) is in his place. He may be aware that the Minister took seriously our concerns about arbitration and legal officers. Perhaps he could touch on that point when he winds up.
  The House was sorry that we did not reach amendments Nos. 20, 21 and 23, to which my hon. Friends the Members for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins), for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), for New Forest, West and for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) referred. We must make it more attractive for an employee to settle within the company's disputes procedure.
  Bearing in mind the fact that it costs nothing for an employee to go to an industrial tribunal, but it costs time and money for an employer to set up a case in a tribunal or in arbitration, the Bill should provide greater incentives for the employee and so encourage the deregulatory process. Is there a way to provide an increased incentive for the employee to use the company's own internal procedure?
  Mr. Swayne: Does my hon. Friend agree that where there is a requirement to exhaust internal procedures before a tribunal, that in itself gives significant impetus to the improvement and development of firms' own internal procedures?
  Mr. Steen: Clearly, my hon. Friend is making up for the brevity of his speech, and the Government would do well to listen to him.
  We like the Bill. You are changing the name from industrial to employment tribunals and you are trying to have a fast track.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must remind the hon. Gentleman, who has been here a long time, that he is addressing the Chair.
  Mr. Steen: Nothing gives me greater pleasure than addressing the Chair when you are in it, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I got carried away with the force of the argument and addressed it to the hon. Member for Lewisham, West, who looked as enthralled as I was.
  The thrust of the Bill is to reduce bureaucracy and to speed up the process, and the process may be speeded up if there are more arbitration agreements and more employment tribunals. However, the best way to reduce the number of disputes coming into the arena is to encourage the procedures set up by the Bill. We want to encourage good industrial relations. If there was an incentive for an employee to do everything he could to settle his dispute within the company system—and if he were told that he might not get more money by going to arbitration or an employment tribunal—that would be welcome.

  817
  We do not want increasing conflicts procedures. We want a happier, reformed country where employees and employers work more happily together. The employee must be encouraged not to take his dispute to a public arena, paid for by legal aid or by his union, where the employer has to fork out so much money that he settles—a sort of blackmail.
  Does the hon. Member for Lewisham, West have a device up his sleeve whereby some pressure could be put on employees to realise that they might not get the best deal by going to a tribunal? Perhaps awarding costs against unsuccessful employees might provide that pressure. We need a stick-and-carrot approach. Using the company's internal procedures may well be to the employee's financial advantage.
  Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend will be aware of the recent Wentworth golf club spanking case, in which an employee—entirely incorrectly—accused her employer of pinning her against a filing cabinet and spanking her. The case went on for eight months at a tribunal, and damaged the interests of Wentworth golf club. In the end, it was proved that she only did it to bring pressure to bear on the golf club to improve her conditions of employment.
  Mr. Steen: I do not know the details of this case as well as my hon. Friend does. I hope that the case has nothing to do with the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey), who is sitting on the Government Benches. There are not many of these cases, but the media love them. They suggest that there must be an encouragement for employees and employers to settle their differences. The hon. Member for Lewisham, West is a man of experience and wisdom, and he may have some way of including this legitimate concern in the Bill.
  Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend has knowledge of small business. Does he accept that most cases are settled internally and that only a small number require the expensive recourse to law and tribunals?
  Mr. Steen: That is only partly correct, because 90,000 cases are still waiting, although I am sure that many differences are dealt with. This country has reached the stage where everybody talks about disputes and rights and we are becoming like the United States, where everybody complains. We have to be careful to ensure that our legislation does not encourage that.
  Mr. Gray: I want only to correct an error that I made in my earlier intervention: it was not the Wentworth golf club—I was confused by the title of the hon. Member in charge of the Bill; it was the Bishop's Stortford golf club.
  Mr. Steen: That puts a very different complexion on the whole matter.
  It is about time that I started to wind up my speech—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] All good things come to an end. The relationship between an employer and an employee can be difficult. My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley explained the difficulties affecting his small family-run business and all that goes on there with members of his family, full-timers and part-timers,
  818
  and the various problems which arise—in fact, it might make a good soap opera. It is good to know that, in spite of all those difficulties, he has prospered, and we believe that his company will go from strength to strength, especially if he does not have too much to do with it.
  In any civilised society, it is important that there is an effective system of hearing and satisfying grievances. The system of industrial tribunals has played and continues to play an extremely valuable role in protecting the rights of employees and allowing grievances to be heard and, where appropriate, redress to be given. None the less, the system is under great strain because of the sheer volume of applications, which are largely the product of the system's success. It is for that reason that the Conservatives support the broad thrust of the Bill, which originates from the draft Bill published under the previous Government.
  We support the Bill because it seeks to make industrial tribunals more effective and to encourage more people to use arbitration as a less costly, less time-consuming and less confrontational approach towards resolving problems. To a certain extent, the Bill is reminiscent of the previous Government's approach to reconciliation in divorce cases. There is a certain irony in our legislating for a quicker, cheaper and less formal way to remove the burden from the system of tribunals, because they were introduced as a means of relieving the pressure on the courts. We hope that we shall not in future have to devise a system of removing the pressure on the system of voluntary arbitration.
  Mr. Jim Dowd (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury)indicated assent.
  Mr. Steen: I am glad to see the hon. Gentleman supports that approach. We have to ensure that, every few years, we do not have to pass more laws to deal with the laws we got wrong before.
  There is an additional procedure outlined in the Bill, but we must avoid creating a problem similar to that which arises when a dual carriageway is built—the assumption then being that traffic will start to flow more easily. If I may digress for a moment, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I can see by your expression that it would be wise to do so for only a moment—in south Devon we keep straightening the roads and getting rid of the hedges; every time we do so, more cars go faster down the roads, so we build ever-larger car parks for those arriving at the end of their journey. If, in the Bill, we provide two or three ways of dealing with disputes, we are in danger of putting three times as much traffic down the routes. I would call it the "Devon road-straightening principle" and I ask the Government not to go down that route. It is expensive and it does not produce better results.
  Mr. John M. Taylor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way in the middle of his superb review of the subject. I am afraid that he is right: when, in the last century, it was found that, for the uses of the ordinary consumer, the High Court was too complicated, the county court was introduced; then in the 20th century it was found that the county court was too complicated and the small claims court was introduced. Is there not always a tendency for such procedures to become hardened in the arteries? My hon. Friend's anxiety about

  819
  the roads in Devon, when viewed in parallel with the history of those judicial systems, is all too plainly justified.
  Mr. Steen: It is a delight to have a question from the Whip; he was on the Front Bench and suddenly disappeared, only to reappear two Benches back. More important, my hon. Friend is a lawyer of great distinction and is well known for his assiduous understanding of the legal process. To hear a former Minister and a Whip make a quality intervention like that is a delight for us all, and his question should make us all aware of the issue of how to prevent more people from going down a road, once it has been opened.
  There is a difficult balance to be struck, because the Bill opens a way that we want to stop people from using. The only way to do that is by taking a stick-and-carrot approach and by telling people that, if they go down that route, there might be stick; but that, if they try to resolve the dispute within their own system, there is a carrot. That is an important principle and the fact that that is its purpose should be somehow attached to the Bill. I do not say that as an idle throwaway point.
  Mr. Paul Flynn: I am sure the hon. Gentleman did not.
  Mr. Steen: No, certainly not. Currently in the pipeline are issues relating to parental leave, the working time directive, the minimum wage and a White Paper that might remove the two-year rule for eligibility to apply to a tribunal for wrongful dismissal. There will be an enormous amount of extra traffic, which is why we are a hostage to fortune. The Conservatives introduced the Bill as a deregulatory measure and the present Government may find that it is a good vehicle to enable them to handle not only matters arising as a result of their legislation, but those emerging from legislation from Europe. Although I have a neutral stance on Europe in terms of more rules and regulations—
  Mr. Forth: What?
  Mr. Steen: I have quite a neutral stance on more rules and regulations, except those that impinge on our way of life and result in more and more bureaucracy, which, far from being good, means that more rules are needed to cope with the new bureaucracy, especially when it comes from Brussels.
  Although one welcomes the Bill, there are all sorts of dangerous pitfalls lurking in the undergrowth. Conservative Members will watch closely the progress and the implementation of the Bill. We want to ensure that it is the fast track and the track envisaged by the previous Government, rather than merely an overspill for more and more grievance proceedings. We also want to ensure that the procedure remains informal and that it does not take on the legalistic characteristics of industrial tribunals.
  As I near the end of this marathon—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Surely not."] I shall not be drawn. As I near the end, I should acknowledge that industrial tribunals do an essential job and play a vital role in maintaining good industrial relations, but there is a backlog and their work load will increase, thanks to the policies pursued by the
  820
  Labour Government and, to some extent, the new legislation from Europe. The Government must evaluate the implementation of the new system to ensure that it provides the promised improvements. Conservative Members earnestly hope that it does deliver those improvements, and we want to see the legislation on the statute book as soon as possible. Finally, I am grateful to the House for giving me the opportunity to wind up for the official Opposition, the Conservative party, in this way.
  11.18 am
  Mr. Jim Dowd (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury): I convey to the House the apologies of my hon. and very good Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), the Minister of State, who, unfortunately, was called away on unavoidable business. Instead of delaying the Bill, we decided to proceed with it this morning, in the hope that we can give it the Third Reading that it richly merits—although there were moments during the speech by the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) when I wondered whether that was likely to happen.
  We have had several contributions by Conservative Members, principally by the hon. Members for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins), for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn), for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser), for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) and for Totnes. We also had a speech by the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), which contained one of the most meteoric ascents of the learning curve that we have witnessed in the House. It is also quite a shock to the Chair for the Chair to make a ruling of which people take notice.
  Most hon. Members who spoke were principally concerned about the actual or potential threat that some of the provisions in the Bill might present to small businesses. There are always problems with small businesses, deriving from a structural problem. People tend to go into small business because they can do one thing very well. They then discover that they need to be able to do two, three, four or five other things before they can put the business in a condition to allow them to do what they do really well. Personnel management and financial control are among the skills that they need to master.
  The purpose of the Bill is not to make the lives of small business people more difficult. To listen to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley on occasion, one would assume that no one was ever dismissed in this world without going to an industrial tribunal, yet, in a later intervention, he pointed out that the vast majority of dismissals or departures were perfectly reasonable and amicable, if not welcome, and that only a minority of cases attracted the attention of industrial tribunals.
  However, it is obvious from Conservative Members' contributions that the current system is in urgent need of review, that it is grinding to a halt, that there are defects in the legislation under which it is administered and that a review of some kind is long overdue.
  Echoed by other hon. Members, the hon. Member for North Wiltshire said that, sometimes, confronted with the logistical complexity of dealing with employment tribunals, people—especially employers—prefer to concede a case than to defend it, although they might have

  821
  a good case. That is a serious matter. One can give people rights, but if the procedures place an unbearable burden on them, so that it becomes practically impossible to enforce those rights, the rights are valueless. The Government are keenly aware that we need to give people the opportunity to enforce those rights. A large part of the Bill is designed to ensure that they can.
  In essence, the Bill simplifies procedures, to give tribunals a greater range of discretion. It seeks to promote conciliation, so that there is no need to have recourse to tribunals.
  The hon. Member for Totnes wanted at least a show of gratitude from us for the Bill's antecedents, and I willingly and unreservedly give it. The measure attracts widespread support, principally because most of its provisions are common sense. I just mention a couple of the reservations that were most frequently expressed by Conservative Members.
  The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale expressed reservations about the chairman sitting alone, or with one other member. The Bill provides for the chairman to sit with one other member, but only when all the parties who are present or represented at the hearing agree to it. It is the conciliatory approach again—nothing will be forced on people. It is envisaged that that provision will be used only rarely, but, when it is used, it will facilitate swift resolution of cases and prevent unnecessary and costly delays, which is one of the principal purposes of the measure.
  The hon. Member for North Wiltshire said that some amendments were accepted in the Lords, where the Bill was considered at length and in detail. In fact, the majority of the amendments tabled in the Lords were accepted and incorporated into the Bill.
  Conservative Members generally said that the Bill was capable of improvement. I very much doubt whether there is a single piece of legislation that has ever passed through the House—or ever will—that could be held to be perfect in all elements, or which hon. Members from any part of the House could not see an opportunity to improve.
  Mr. Evans: Some are better than others.
  Mr. Dowd: I am informed that some are better than others. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was not referring to the legislation that set up the Child Support Agency.
  Issues such as employment tribunals and all the matters relating to employment law need, perforce, to remain permanently under review. It will always be necessary to ensure that these things are working; that they are working in the way that Parliament wanted them to work; that they are working for the benefit of the people for whom they were designed.
  One of the hallmarks of the present Government, which we have attempted to impress on the House since May 1997, is that we are not doctrinaire or dogmatic in that sense. Our philosophy is best encapsulated in the idea that what counts is what works. I hope that we shall be able to get the Bill speedily on to the statute book and into operation. Obviously, guidance will be provided as to interpretation and performance, but no Government
  822
  Department simply sends a Bill out into the world with no regard as to what happens. The Bill will be constantly monitored to see whether it needs to be fine-tuned.
  I take the point that the hon. Member for Totnes made: sometimes, one solves one problem and is left with a different problem to tackle. As a general proposition, as long as one's secondary problem is less than one's primary problem, at least one is making progress. I very much doubt whether there is a perfect solution in these matters, but they will remain under constant review.
  Mr. Steen: The Minister may well be coming to this point, in which case perhaps he will forgive me for raising it. My hon. Friends and I suggested that we should give the employee an incentive not to use the new system. Might that be part of an appendix, an annexure or a working practice note attached to the Bill?
  Mr. Dowd: The hon. Gentleman mentioned that in the carrot-and-stick section of his speech. Provision already exists for costs to be awarded when a party acts frivolously, vexatiously, abusively, disruptively or otherwise unreasonably in bringing, conducting, proceeding with or concluding proceedings, such as when the party is advised that they have no case, yet they insist on going ahead with it. The penalties already exist—the stick is already there.
  However, the one thing that we were keen to do in the Bill, as is evidenced by clause 13, was to ensure that there are more informal ways of promoting solutions by the quickest possible route. We are equally convinced that people should obtain advice before agreeing to a determination on written evidence. Under the Bill, people do not surrender their rights by agreeing to a determination, but the Government would encourage people to ensure that they understand, and obtain the advice that they need, before proceeding.
  In summary, the Bill was introduced at the other end of the building by Lord Archer of Sandwell.
  Mr. Evans: As I suspect that this is the first time that the hon. Gentleman has appeared at the Dispatch Box, I should like to say on behalf of Conservative Members, how grateful we are for the courtesy and good grace with which he has responded to the debate, standing in for the Minister of State. The latter's loss is our gain, because at least we can understand the hon. Gentleman's response, which has not always been case with the Minister of State. We wish the hon. Gentleman all the best in the forthcoming reshuffle. I am sure that the competent way in which he has handled today's proceedings will not be lost on his party.
  Mr. Dowd: I am grateful for those kind remarks—although I am not sure whether they are accurate. My hon. Friend the Minister of State has a way of making people understand what he means, whether verbally or otherwise.
  This measure was introduced in the other place by Lord Archer of Sandwell. We are grateful for the opportunity that it presents to discuss these important matters. The Bill was picked up by my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey), who has been pursuing me in my normal capacity, to which I shall return later this afternoon, to ensure that the Bill makes every progress. There was considerable debate on the

  823
  legislation in the other place. During 10 hours of debate, 89 amendments were submitted, of which about 50 were accepted.
  The legislation puts right several defects in current law. For example, jurisdiction of the employment appeal tribunals to hear appeals in cases of breach of contract was removed inadvertently by consolidation legislation introduced by the previous Government. There is now a huge backlog of such cases and, unless this legislation makes early progress, they will have to go to the High Court for determination—and I am sure that everyone accepts that that is not a sensible way to deal with those matters.
  The Report and Third Reading debates have taken longer than perhaps many hon. Members anticipated, but the time has not been wasted. We have rehearsed several important arguments and identified the germs of a quite reasonable debate that should take place on a range of other issues, including the plight of small business and the role of the courts. However, I must admit that I am always slightly skeptical—to put it mildly—when lawyers tell me that there are too many laws and too many courts.
  I sincerely hope that the House will make progress with the measure and give it a Third Reading. I hope that all hon. Members will support the provisions as a positive contribution to the efficient and effective performance of employment tribunals, not simply for the benefit of public administration but, more particularly, for the rights of those who will benefit from them.
  11.31 am
  Mr. John Healey: With the leave of the House, I rise to wind up the debate on Third Reading. I am pleased—not to mention rather relieved—to reach this point in proceedings. I welcome the contributions made this morning, in particular that of the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen). He made the most of his reappearance on the Front Bench, and I enjoyed his speech almost as much as his colleagues did. I also welcome the appearance of the Lord Commissioner, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd). He is often on the Front Bench on a Friday morning, so it was nice that he was given a speaking part today.
  The support that many hon. Members have offered the Bill this morning suggests that we should see it safely through its Third Reading later today. I believe that it will become the first private Member's Bill to reach the statute book in this Parliament. As the promoter of the Bill in the House, I am proud to have played a small part in that process. I pay particular tribute to my right hon. Friend Lord Archer of Sandwell, who has done the lion's share of the work in steering the Bill safely through to this stage. He led the Bill through the other place with painstaking care, skill and, at times, patience. He led it through 10 hours of debate and 86 amendments, 49 of which were accepted. Their lordships set out to make a good Bill better, and they succeeded. The measure has received wide-ranging support from the Trades Union Congress, the Confederation of British Industry, the Institute of Directors and the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux. There was detailed pre-parliamentary consultation on the Bill, which has now received lengthy legislative scrutiny.
  I shall now attempt to deal with some of the specific points raised in the debate this morning. I shall start with the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray).
  824
  I endorse his comment—I am sure that the view is also shared by my colleagues—that tribunals are an important and valuable way of settling employment disputes. The hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) expressed concern about the composition of tribunals. Earlier this month, the Minister of State announced a freeze on new appointments to industrial tribunals. There is wide on-going consultation about how we may broaden the composition of tribunals. If the hon. Gentleman wants to inject fresh and youthful vigour into tribunals, I suggest that he submits his views as part of the consultation process. I am certain that the Minister will welcome his ideas about that process.
  Mr. Evans: What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that as many people as possible know about the consultation exercise? How will he ensure that that information reaches the younger people whom we are seeking to attract to tribunals?
  Mr. Healey: The hon. Gentleman obviously does not read the same newspapers and magazines as I do. If he did, he would have seen that the press release was picked up quite widely. If he would like to have details of the consultees to the process, I am sure that the Minister will be pleased to provide that list.
  The more substantial point about burden of proof cropped up this time last week on Report, and was referred to by the hon. Members for Totnes and for North Wiltshire. The hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) articulated a misconception that was picked up by some other Conservative Members. Clause 6 does nothing to change the burden of proof at industrial tribunals. The Bill is not a part of what Conservative Members have described as the relentless change in the balance of the burden of proof within the industrial tribunal system. Clause 6 simply restates the present legal position. Clause 6(3)—which is probably attracting all the attention—for the purposes of clarity, restates the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, which is in turn a restatement of the Trade Union Act 1984, which the previous Conservative Government introduced 14 years ago.
  Another important misconception is connected with the burden of proof, which the hon. Members for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) and for North Wiltshire perpetuated this morning. The burden of proof may be better described as the responsibility for proof. It does not presume or imply any judgment of guilt before the hearing: it is simply a question of which party is in the best position to provide the information that the tribunal requires in order to settle a dispute over facts.
  Mr. Collins: The hon. Gentleman will recall that, when I addressed that point by way of intervention, I referred to the interlink between this legislation and the National Minimum Wage Bill, which the House passed recently. That legislation is relevant to this Bill. Under that legislation, if the employer does not provide evidence that an employee has been paid the minimum wage, an offence is automatically deemed to have been committed. It does not matter whether the records have been destroyed by a fire, the millennium computer bug, or whatever. Therefore, I fear that the hon. Gentleman is slightly

  825
  wrong. I accept what he says about this legislation, but he must recognise that it links with other legislation already passed by Parliament.
  Mr. Healey: We are discussing the Bill as it stands on Third Reading, so I shall not be tempted into an argument about the National Minimum Wage Bill. This legislation plays no part in the assertion that there has been a systematic change in the burden of proof.
  Another substatial point raised by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire related to private arbitration, a point picked up by the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser), who I am glad to see is back in the Chamber. The Bill does not prevent an employer and an employee from going to private arbitration under their own auspices. If they choose to do so, that is fine, but the Government are not convinced that where individuals choose to take arbitration, they should relinquish their statutory rights to take the case to tribunal other than when they use arbitration overseen and quality-assured by ACAS.
  We are dealing with fundamental rights. Losing one's job is one of the worst things that can happen to a person. Giving up one's right to have one's case heard by a tribunal should not be taken lightly. If one gives up that right in favour of an alternative form of dispute resolution, it is important that sufficient safeguards are built in. That is what the Bill does. Freelance private arbitration could not do that.
  Mr. Gray: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that if the great ogre of the industrial tribunal remains behind the case, there is little point in private arbitration? If the private arbitration goes against either the employer or the employee, either side can have recourse to an industrial tribunal.
  Mr. Healey: That is entirely a matter for the parties concerned. The Bill seeks to encourage people to use arbitration as an alternative to the industrial tribunal hearing, and, to do that, we want to make sure that the arbitration is properly founded and overseen by ACAS.
  I should like to make two further specific points—I am getting signs that I should wind up, but these are important points that have not been properly answered and require a response. First, on the question of the chairman sitting alone, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale painted a picture of a dramatic extension of that provision under clause 3. The impact of the Bill will be only a limited extension of the practice of the chairman sitting alone. That will occur when the case covers technical jurisdictions, such as the right to statutory redundancy payment. If a case hinges on a point of law rather than on disputed facts, there is a strong argument that a tribunal chairman sitting alone is competent to do so.
  The hon. Gentleman raised the concern directly from a constituent that there may be a personality problem between a tribunal chairman and a plaintiff. Safeguards are already built into the Employment Rights Act 1996. In deciding whether to sit alone and hear a case, the first point that the chairman must take into account is the view of the parties involved.
  Mr. Collins: In the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers, which was brought to me by a constituent,
  826
  the personality clash was not identified before the constituent was asked whether he was happy for the chairman to sit alone. It emerged afterwards. In the course of the proceedings, it became clear that the chairman and my constituent could not discuss matters rationally, as my constituent described it. The hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that, under the Bill, as under existing legislation, once the plaintiff has conceded that the chairman can sit alone or with one other, he cannot subsequently retract that if, during the hearing of evidence, he regrets that decision. That is why we must be careful not to extend the provisions more than would be sensible.
  Mr. Healey: The hon. Gentleman again makes the point that he made earlier.
  I move on to the comments on clause 13. The Bill is designed to encourage the greater use of internal appeal procedures. Listening to Opposition Members, I believe that it is clear that they do not appreciate that the operation of internal appeal procedures requires persuasion on both sides. Such procedures do not exist in many companies at present, and the Bill will help the process of establishing them. The purpose is to encourage—not to compel—people to use those procedures.
  The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, I think, was concerned that the balance of penalty was out of kilter under clause 13. The penalty paid by the employee and the employer is identical. There is the possibility of two weeks' salary being added to or deducted from the compensation awarded, if the internal appeal procedures are not pursued. If anything, that is a more punitive sanction for the employee than for the employer in most cases.
  Mr. St. Aubyn rose—
  Mr. Healey: I must press on, as both sides of the House are keen for me to make progress.
  The Bill brings modest rather than radical reform to employment tribunals. It makes a good service even better.
  Mr. St. Aubyn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I raised a point in debate that has not been answered by the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd) or by the hon. Gentleman. It related to the concept that, for small and possibly also medium-sized firms, there should be cap on the amount for which they might be liable in an individual case. I was referring to the amendment proposed in clause 14, to section 117(6) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and the possibility that a cap could be imposed in the same clause. Will the hon. Gentleman please answer that point?
  Mr. Healey: That is beyond the scope of the Bill. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should make representations to the Minister of State, who is preparing a White Paper on fairness at work, which could well cover such issues. That would be the appropriate context in which to raise the matter.
  Since they were set up by the Industrial Training Act 1964, tribunals have had their jurisdictions and their work load increased year by year. They now have jurisdiction

  827
  to deal with 60 separate employment matters such as protection from discrimination on grounds of sex, race or disability, prohibition of involvement in running employment agencies, and the right to time off for public duties. Tribunals deal with almost 90,000 applications each year, a total set to rise to 109,000 by 2000.
  The Bill is timely. It will help the employment Tribunal Service to gear up to deal with the delays that remain in the system, despite the best efforts of tribunal staff and members, and it will help the service to gear up to deal with the jurisdictions in prospect, which the hon. Member for Totnes mentioned, under the national minimum wage, the working time directive, the equalisation of rights of part-timers and legislation that will flow from the parental leave directive.
  The Bill has three purposes. The first is to remove unnecessary inflexibilities in the system for dealing with disputes, by streamlining the tribunal procedures. The second is to encourage more disputes to be settled voluntarily or with the help of a third party, by promoting greater use of internal company procedures, by extending the role of the conciliation officer to cover redundancy payment claims, and by allowing employment experts other than lawyers to give advice on compromise agreements—a measure which the hon. Member for North Shropshire will no doubt welcome.
  The third purpose of the Bill is to offer a less formal alternative method of resolving unfair dismissal disputes, which were half the total cases disposed of by tribunals in 1995–96.
  Mr. Steen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Healey: I must press on.
  Mr. Steen: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that he would like to hear what I am about to say. On behalf of my hon. Friends, I thank him for the way in which he has conducted himself in this matter, for the way in which he has presented the Bill to Parliament, and for the good will and time that he has given to discussing with us various problems that we have had with the Bill. I wish it well.
  Mr. Healey: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's remarks, although I feel that I am under pressure from both sides.
  In conclusion, I know from my working experience before entering the House—and it has been confirmed since, with my constituency case work—that the changes in the Bill are needed, to maintain the established purpose of tribunals in the modern era. Although, strictly speaking, we are discussing a private Member's Bill, it is a good example of the Government's general approach to the reform of employment matters, by first seeking consensus, and then seeking progress through partnership with employers, unions and other experts with an interest in the issue. I therefore look for the same breadth of support for the Bill in the House today as it has outside.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with an amendment.

  Pesticides Bill
  Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Pesticides Bill
    New clause 2

      RESTRICTION ON APPLICATION OF REGULATIONS
      '.—Regulations made under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 shall not apply to old or new organic pesticides, including solutions of tobacco leaf juice or live ladybirds:—.[Mr. Maclean.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      11.50 am
      Mr. David Maclean: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The new clause seeks to exempt organic pesticides, including solutions of tobacco leaf juice or live ladybirds.
      Mr. James Gray: I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend so early in his speech, but it is worth recording how grateful we Back Benchers are for all the work that he has done behind the scenes on private Members' business over the past three or four weeks. I am glad to see that my right hon. Friend is on his feet.
      Mr. Maclean: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but he may not be too pleased that I am on my feet when he hears what I have to say. He may disagree with my views on organic farming and organic pesticides. I had some responsibility for the matter some years ago when I was a Minister at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, although I have probably largely forgotten all about it since those days.
      I believe that new clause 2 is necessary. I am concerned about the requirement on the producers of pesticides to produce all the relevant data for pesticides approval. I believe that during my time at MAFF the relevant data could amount to a cost of about £20 million per approval.
      Mr. Nigel Waterson: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way so early in his speech. Is he not worried, as I am, that some unscrupulous manufacturers could, as we have seen in the medicines sector, produce products masquerading as organic which are not actually organic, thereby evading the relevant regulations? Does he, therefore, agree that his new clause may not go far enough, as there should be some definition of what is meant by organic in this context?
      Mr. Maclean: That is possible, but MAFF and the pesticides safety directorate are not easily fooled by someone writing organic on the label of something that is not an organic product. The new clause is a probing clause, and I do not pretend that it covers all eventualities. A definition of an organic pesticide may be necessary.
      I am concerned that we are losing more and more organic materials and organic pesticides in the same way as we are losing, in veterinary medicine, some products that are not used very much—they are used for various small animals and are not sold in large quantities. It is not worth the manufacturer spending time to make the product or spending the millions of pounds on research necessary to bring it to market and get a licence.

      829
      It is the same with pesticides. Coal-tar washes are used on roses, and Fairy Liquid is used to wash roses and remove greenfly. Admittedly, it is not a permanent killer, but it is successful for a few days. Many people—retired people and older gardeners—with the chance to treat their roses daily, wander round their gardens and take action every day. They are happy to use such materials, even though they may not be as effective as Glyphosate as a weed killer or as some of the other insecticides that are highly effective in killing most bugs except whitefly. I should be most grateful to anyone who could find something to kill the whitefly in my greenhouse.
      There are products that gardeners have used for many years apparently quite safely, with no apparent risk to human health, either from inhalation or absorption through the skin. They have been effective when used on plant material or vegetables, and have not proved dangerous.
      Mr. Norman Baker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many beekeepers are concerned that the treatment that they have been using, TALC, will be made illegal and they will be required to use a chemical formulation instead of the present arrangements with which they are satisfied?
      Mr. Maclean: I was not aware of that, but it is another example which adds to my general concern.
      I was alerted to the problem by catching on the wireless recently an edition of the better gardener's question time programme which has moved to Classic FM. I heard some advice given by one of the panellists, whom I had better not name—but he had a wonderfully rich Yorkshire accent. He gave wonderful advice on how to treat disease infestation, but was told that the organic product he suggested was now illegal under rules, possibly EC rules, that MAFF is going to implement. He said, "My simple advice is to carry on using it and ignore the rules." That is not advice which I could naturally espouse, but it showed that materials that have been used without problem for at least 50 years by gardeners are now being outlawed.
      Mr. Eric Forth: May I press my right hon. Friend on the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) a minute or so ago? I am not satisfied that there is a satisfactory definition of organic for this purpose. I say that in all friendliness to my right hon. Friend, who has tabled a new clause which rests heavily on the concept and use of organic pesticides as opposed to non-organic pesticides. Is he satisfied that a sufficiently adequate, comprehensive and workable definition of organic exists for the purposes of his new clause in altering the Bill?
      Mr. Maclean: No, I do not believe that such a definition exists at present, but I believe that it should be possible for MAFF—a much underestimated Ministry—and those in the pesticides safety directorate to come up with an acceptable and workable definition. All I look for from the Minister today is a steer on whether the Government may be tempted to take this approach. The Bill will go to another place and it may be possible for
      830
      their lordships to come up with a definition. Alternatively, at some future date, a definition of organic could be added to the Bill, as that is probably required to make proper sense of the new clause.
      I am seeking to make a point in principle with the new clause. While we welcome the Bill, I am concerned that it could bring about a further tightening of the noose around all those so-called organic products. One could say that a coal-tar wash was initially made up of a synthesised product, but it has been used safely for at least 50 years. I see no reason why it should be outlawed now purely because it is too expensive for the manufacturers, users or, in some cases, the gardeners in their small co-operatives, who use a mixture of Fairy Liquid and some other material. Those materials have no doubt been approved and tested for human safety, but the combination of the different materials has not been tested and approved because the manufacturers of Fairy Liquid did not design it for use on roses. Fairy Liquid may be safe on the hands and good for the dishes, but it was not designed for gardening purposes, so it will not be granted a MAFF licence of approval.
      Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: May I suggest a very simple definition of organic that might well fulfil the purpose: any naturally occurring substance?
      Mr. Maclean: I am grateful for that; it might fulfil the purpose. However, many naturally occurring substances, when refined or treated, can become highly potent. No doubt a MAFF scientist would quickly say that such a definition would not be acceptable. Some of the most dangerous chemicals and compounds are naturally occurring. As an avid mushroom collector, I am aware of the dangers of naturally occurring substances.
      Mr. Peter Atkinson: I remind my right hon. Friend that one of the greatest complaints made by manufacturers of some of the traditional or well-established products is that testing them in the United Kingdom often incurs a five-figure cost, whereas to license the same product in France or Belgium costs £100 or £200 because those countries accept that, if a product has been used for 20 or 30 years, it is de facto safe.
      Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is right. I believe that there are different charges in different European countries, and Britain probably has some of the higher charges. I am, however, absolutely adamant that we have higher standards of inspection and approval. I had the pleasure of hearing the Minister of State speak to the Food and Drink Federation a few weeks ago. He said that he had not had any dealings with MAFF before becoming Minister of State and that it was an eye-opener to see that what went on in the various directorates under his command was—I think—infinitely better than he may have believed in opposition.
      MAFF has generally suffered much unfair abuse over recent years, yet the work of its various professional committees and directorates is of a very high standard. I would bow to no one in saying that the people who check pesticides and veterinary products, and who work on safety committees in this country set the highest standards in the world—even higher than the Americans,

      831
      who like to believe that, with their Food and Drug Administration, they operate high standards. They are much more liable to political manipulation than we are.
      12 noon
      The Government are keen to boost organic farming, but they will find difficulty in doing so. The previous Government tried to give such farming a little boost, and this Government are trying even more. Although many people say that they would love to eat organic produce, and when asked whether they want products covered in pesticides they will, of course, say no, the public are still not prepared to pay the very high premium on organic produce, especially as most cannot tell the difference in taste. Some people may have a fine enough palate to do so, but many cannot, and do not find the premium worth paying. If the Government want to boost organic farming, it would be correlative to take steps to try to ensure that pesticides used by organic farmers and gardeners are not inadvertently driven off the market. There is no malice on the Government's part; they do not particularly want that to happen.
      Mr. Nigel Evans: If the previous Administration were keen, as this Administration are, to boost organic farming, there must be some definition of organic. Could that not be related to the new clause?
      Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The Soil Association Ltd. has criteria for determining organic produce, as well as some criteria for determining what organic farmers may use as pesticides on their crops. Such a definition would not be watertight, but it would take us about 90 per cent. of the way down the route.
      If the Government want to boost organic farming, they must consider carefully continuing to allow in the marketplace materials that farmers and gardeners have used for years, which have not, of course, been approved by all the committees and been given a MAFF licence, because it is not possible to spend the £20 million necessary to have them tested.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) mentioned licensing, which I think costs about £7,000 or £10,000. That is nothing in comparison to what has to be paid in research to get a product to the point where it can be taken to MAFF, along with about 200 ft of documents. At least 10 years of research and product development, at a cost of about £20 million, are necessary in order to introduce a new pesticide to the market. If manufacturers spend all that on research, they have to sell an awful lot of produce at a fairly high price before they begin to recover their outlay. They will get a return on their investment only if farmers buy an awful lot of it, and it is used extensively in the large glasshouse industry or on grain farms, or in other enterprises with a large acreage and many users.
      Inevitably, the manufacturers will not make pesticides or organic materials for little market gardeners and other small guys, to be used in a minority or niche market. If the day ever comes when organic farming is the majority market, it will be worth while for manufacturers to make products for it.
      I suspect that the Government will not be able to accept the new clause today, but I hope that the Minister will be able to say that it contains a point worth taking further,
      832
      either in another place or with simple amending legislation, to try to ensure, as far as is possible, that, while protecting human health and safety from dodgy materials made in the garden shed, legitimate organic pesticides are available for those who wish to use them.
      The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): I am grateful for the way in which the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) introduced his new clause, and especially for what he said about my Department, repeating my own words. I recall the night in question, and we were deprived of the chance of listening to the president of the National Farmers Union because we had to be cleared out of the hotel when the fire alarm went off.
      The right hon.Gentleman has raised an important point. Clearly the new clause must be in order, or it would not have been selected by Madam Speaker, but the essential purpose of the Bill is as a piece of freedom of information legislation. I freely admit that it was a handout Bill left over from the previous Government, and not an invention of the present Government. It has been hanging around Whitehall gathering dust for a while. However, it fills a gap identified some time ago, and we are pleased to be able to support my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) in promoting it.
      The cost of bringing new pesticides and veterinary medicines on to the market has been raised. The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border is right to say that, despite the high costs of the licence and the documents needed to submit the application—those fill several filing cabinets; I have seen them in the stores both at York and at Weybridge—it is the research that gets the product to that point which is the most expensive.
      I take the point that some products are used by individual gardeners as home remedies, and I imagine that the pesticides inspectors turn a blind eye to those for home use. However, when we are talking about products that may be used on foods for consumption, we are in a different ball game. We must be very rigorous about what we allow to be sprayed on food.
      Mr. Evans: The Minister will know that many people grow their own food for home consumption, and they could have problems. Will he say something about that? Secondly, am I right in thinking that if there were an organic pesticide it could not be patented as other pesticides could, and that is why some of the chemical industries are not interested in producing one? Much research would be necessary; we have already heard how expensive that is. Yet, after all that, anybody else could produce the pesticide, too, because no patent would be involved.
      Mr. Rooker: I do not know the specific answer to the hon. Gentleman's question. I am about to deal with the organic aspect, but I do not know whether the problem with organic pesticides is the inability to patent them. The hon. Gentleman's point is well made; that probably is the case. However, as the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border said, we have not been able to produce a definition of "organic". We freely admit that that is a problem. The word "organic" is hard to define.
      We must not assume that natural products are automatically safe. That is why I ask the House to resist the new clause. Even if we could define the term, we still

      833
      could not have a general exemption for organic pesticides en bloc because they are not always safe. I have one example for the House—that of derris, which is permitted for use by organic growers, yet is extremely toxic to aquatic life. Just because a product is labelled "organic", that is not a buzzword for "safe". Like the previous Government, we want to improve organic production. This country has the worst record in the European Union for the amount that we produce organically. We import most of the organic foods on sale in our shops. There is no good reason why we cannot substantially increase organic production, despite all the difficulties involved.
      The new clause mentions the use of live ladybirds. The pesticides regulations already exclude the use of ladybirds and certain other products that present no great risk or are covered by other legislation. The purpose of this Bill is not to deal with pesticides in the round; its provisions are very narrow. Clause 1 deals with freedom of information to the public about pesticides, and clause 2 deals with improving the operation of investigations where allegations have been made, bringing it into line with the normal procedures of the health and safety directorate.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: First, I declare an interest: I am a farmer and user of licensed pesticides.
      It is a good idea to place on the record the fact that pesticide use in the United Kingdom is probably the most tightly regulated in the world. The Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 sets out the framework for the licensing and use of pesticides, and ensures that pesticides are used only if they are safe.
      The Bill may lead some people to think that all pesticides should be outlawed because they are highly dangerous and injurious to human health. That is a common fallacy. Without some pesticide use, it would be impossible to produce food that the average modern housewife would want to buy. Although we want to encourage organic production, because of the price differential between non-organic and organic produce, the average modern housewife will go for the cheapest product. That is invariably produced using pesticides, which enable a greater quantity of clean food to be produced.
      I am all for encouraging organic production, which can be achieved with a properly sustained public information campaign and advertising. One of the main planks for organic production is that only carefully and narrowly defined pesticides are allowed. The Minister has already referred to derris, a naturally occurring organic substance which our ancestors knew about generations ago.
      Given that that environment is so tightly regulated, and that the Government will shortly introduce the Food Standards Agency to tighten the use and control of pesticides and food safety in general even further, I am not sure whether the Bill is necessary. Ministers should explain to the general public what extensive powers they already have.
      Mr. Evans: I am not a gardener, but my constituency is full of gardeners who grow produce for home consumption—for their families and for others around them. For all we know, they may sell their produce from
      834
      the garden gate—that still goes on in my constituency. That is why the provisions in the Bill need to be strengthened. The Minister said that, now and again, people turn a blind eye. Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Bill is too strictly interpreted, it will cover people who grow food for their own consumption? The Minister did not respond to that point.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. Garden pesticides and commercially used pesticides are controlled in the same way, but it is much more difficult to enforce regulations on home-used products. I am a practitioner who knows how to use the pesticides—there is a huge difference in the way in which they are mixed, in their application rates, in the spray nozzles that are used and in the effect of weather conditions. A huge number of factors affect the amount of active ingredient that ends up on the plant, which is one of the difficulties—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. This is all very interesting, but it goes well beyond the scope of the new clause. The hon. Gentleman must confine his remarks to the terms of the new clause.
      12.15 pm
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The subject is so interesting, and my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) led me astray. The new clause relates to the use of naturally occurring substances. It states:
      "Regulations made under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 shall not apply to old or new organic pesticides".
      My general remarks related to the importance of the method of application of organic and inorganic pesticides to their effectiveness.
      On the definition of "organic", my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) pooh-poohed my suggestion of a naturally occurring substance. As with any simplistic concept, people will find ways in which to get round regulations. However, I should not have thought it beyond the wit of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and its specialist advisers to come up with a satisfactory definition.
      Given the panoply of licensing authorities, it should be possible to exempt some organic pesticides, which would help the organic sector. As the Minister said, organic products are much more widely available on the continent than in this country. Indeed, the lack of home-grown organic products is a deficit in our food production system. Unless the new clause is accepted, the Bill could make conditions for the organic sector even more difficult. I hope that the House will accept at least a variant of the new clause.
      Mr. James Paice: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), I declare an interest as someone who occasionally uses pesticides.
      I sympathise with my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), who is rightly concerned about costs to the industry. We shall, I hope, soon discuss an amendment that I tabled specifically to address that issue.

      835
      The new clause relates to the use of organic, naturally occurring, chemicals, including old ones. On this occasion, I must resort to supporting the Government, as the Minister was absolutely right to suggest that the matter is not as simple as it appears to be. I very much welcome his comment that just because something is natural or organic, that does not mean it is safe. It is right and proper that we should put to rest the mystique that often surrounds organic products. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border and others will be aware, many plants and vegetables contain chemicals that, although naturally occurring, can be very toxic if taken in extreme quantities or extracted and used in some other way.
      Mr. Peter Atkinson: Rhubarb.
      Mr. Paice: I take it that my hon. Friend is politely reminding me that rhubarb is one such plant, rather than referring to the quality of my speech. He is right. Rhubarb, potatoes, spinach, mushrooms and many other foods contain naturally occurring chemicals that are toxic and should not be used.
      The new clause refers to the use of old organic products. That is not a new idea; it goes back a long way. In about 400 BC, Democritos of Abdera recommended soaking seeds in sedum juice to protect them against disease before sowing. A little later, in about 50 BC, Plinius the Elder reported on the use of ashes, crushed cypress leaves and diluted urine as crop protection products. Not many hon. Members would want such things applied without any regulation, which is what is being proposed.
      Mr. Peter Atkinson: Given that my constituency is in the north-east, where leek growing and competitive leek growing are important, I would hate my hon. Friend to stop people from using the traditional methods to grow leeks, which include using urine and burying old mattresses. Those people would be alarmed to be caught under the pesticides regulations.
      Mr. Paice: I was close to my hon. Friend's constituency all day yesterday and am well aware of some of the activities that go on there. I certainly do not want to prevent keen gardeners from doing such things. I am merely concerned, as are my hon. Friends, to ensure that the legislation is properly targeted so that it does not have any unfortunate side-effects or consequences.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: Even if the new clause were accepted, organic pesticides would still have to be licensed. As I pointed out, our licensing system is one of the most stringent in the world. It specifies the concentration of the naturally occurring produce, the formulation and the maximum residue levels permitted in plants, so the public would still have extensive and stringent protection if the new clause were accepted.
      Mr. Paice: My hon. Friend is right, but we are considering the information that is made available to the public. If something is to be licensed and to go through the rigorous process to which he referred, it is only right and proper that relevant information should be made available. As the Minister said, the previous Government
      836
      prepared this legislation, but did not have time to introduce it. I shall table some amendments that may improve it a little, but the public should have access to the information. I hope that my hon. Friend will not pursue the matter further because of the great problem of defining the word organic.
      None of the definitions stands up, including "naturally occurring products", when one considers all the naturally occurring products that are toxic. If the new clause is added to the Bill, we will merely create another opportunity for lawyers to argue at length about the definitions used in it, which I do not want to do.
      Mr. Ben Bradshaw: I do not want to delay the debate. Perhaps I can reassure the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) that the Bill is not about regulation but about information, which is what we should be discussing.
      All the flaws of the new clause have been pointed out, but I will remind hon. Members of them. They are the difficulty of defining "organic" and the fact that organic material can be toxic. It is as simple as that, and I hope that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) may feel able to withdraw the new clause.
      Mr. Maclean: It is clearly inappropriate for the new clause to be added to the Bill. I appreciate the difficulties that have been pointed out, but I hope that I have flagged up a little problem with which the Government will have to grapple. I should have liked to grapple with it five or six years ago, but the matter was a low priority because we had to carry out so many reviews of existing pesticides.
      After the Government have speeded up or completed the reviews, and if they want to encourage organic farming, they must turn their mind to the problem of organic compounds, some of which are made in garden sheds and are highly dangerous.
      We have had an excellent debate, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 1

      REGULATION OF PESTICIDES
      Mr. Paice: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 20, at end insert
      'which shall not include the cost of original research on the pesticide. nor the costs of collating the information for Government departments or the manufacturer's own use.'.
      We discussed costs in Committee, and I asked what charges would be levied on those who wanted access to the information. The Minister gave a number of assurances. On reflection, I think that they should be in the Bill, but the problem is the vexed question of what is meant in law by the phrase "attributable to".
      The courts have found it difficult to answer that causation problem clearly and conclusively in many other contexts, most notably concerning what damages are caused by acts or conduct constituting, for example, breach of contract or tort. The cost of original research is attributable to the supply of information, because

      837
      information could not be supplied without such research being carried out. The amendment would prevent the cost of research being brought into the charging equation.
      It would be unreasonable to expect members of the public who want access to the information to pay such costs, but fine words do not necessarily achieve the results that we want, which is why the assurances should be in the Bill. The cost of providing the information—in Committee, the Minister mentioned photocopying—would be low, but I am concerned. The Minister has answered parliamentary questions on the subject. One of his replies stated:
      "The cost of providing information to the public about agricultural pesticides is borne by the Department and, certain publication charges apart, is not recovered from the public."
      Most seriously, he added:
      "An estimate of the cost of provision of this service cannot be provided without incurring disproportionate costs." — [Official Report, 20 March 1998; Vol. 309, c. 74.]
      If the costs are to be the basis for introducing a charging mechanism, we must know what they are. The hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) and the Minister must reconsider the issue. If they can be worked out, the Minister's answer is not as helpful as it could be; if the cost of provision cannot be disaggregated from the other costs of the pesticides safety directorate, there is added impetus to agree to amendment No. 1.
      I am concerned that there is no accurate basis on which to arrange the charging mechanism. In another parliamentary answer, the Minister stated:
      "The costs of providing information to the public under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 is borne by the Department. No charge for the work is passed on to the agrochemical industry." — [Official Report, 20 March 1998; Vol. 309, c. 75.]
      That is technically correct, but I have raised the matter with the agrochemical industry, which told me that few, if any, requests have been made to view data in the pesticides safety directorate reading room. The directorate also made the point that it would therefore be wrong to devote manpower and expenditure to prepare the information for disclosure if there was little public interest in seeing that information. Another written answer revealed that there were only seven requests in 1997 to see the data. However, the British Agrochemicals Association clearly suggests that disclosure would impose costs on the agrochemical industry.
      12.30 pm
      Mr. Forth: I have also read the Minister's comments in Committee, which were partly helpful, but not very. I hope to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to reinforce the points that my hon. Friend is making. In Committee, the Minister said:
      "I understand that the Pesticides Safety Directorate has an incredible number of overseas visitors who trawl through the paperwork in the library." — [Official Report, Standing Committee C, 4 March 1998: c. 6.]
      That strikes me as totally at odds with the answers received by my hon. Friend. The issue is clouded by confusion and misinformation, so I do not know how we can expect to achieve a proper costing mechanism to fulfil the requirements of the Bill.
      Mr. Paice: My right hon. Friend makes an important point, and I hope that the Minister will address what
      838
      appears to be a contradiction in those two statements. All I seek is to write into the Bill the principle that the charges made to those who wish to access information will be purely the extra costs incurred by the directorate in making the information available. The directorate should not be able to take the opportunity to load on to the charges any of the other costs that it incurs. The directorate's cost runs into many millions of pounds and is mainly covered by a levy from the industry—I welcome the fact that the levy has recently been reduced.
      The method by which the charges are calculated is important, and I have outlined my concerns about whether it is possible to calculate them fairly and equitably. I am not against charging for information, because it is right and proper that if people want to access data they should pay the proper charge. However, I seek to ensure that they pay the proper charge and no more. My amendment would ensure that.
      Mr. Forth: I shall follow directly on what my hon. Friend has said, because it strikes me that the position is getting unnecessarily muddled. The problem arises from the wording of Bill, which is not as helpful as it might be, even though the Minister claimed that the phrase
      "reasonably attributable to the supply of information"
      represented a breakthrough, which I doubt. The word "reasonable" has a distinguished history in legislation in this country and is deemed generally to be understood, but in this case I wonder. In Committee, the Minister said:
      "We intend to fix charges at no more than the cost of supply. Generally speaking, that will be the cost of photocopying—large administration costs will not be involved." — [Official Report, Standing Committee C, 4 March 1998; c. 5.]
      I wonder whether that will be the case.
      I am not sure whether I entirely agree with the amendment. It states—not unreasonably—that the cost
      "shall not include the cost of original research on the pesticide, nor the costs of collating the information".
      So far, so good, but it continues:
      "for … the manufacturer's own use."
      If a manufacturer required information, it might not be unreasonable to require the manufacturer to pay for it. A distinction should be made between the private citizen and the manufacturer. I am, therefore, not totally happy with the amendment.
      I hope that the amendment's real purpose is to try to elicit from the Minister a much more structured reply than any that we have had to date. Certainly, we did not get such a reply in Committee. I hope that, since the Committee on 4 March, the Minister and his officials have come up with more helpful information. From what my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) said, I understand that his attempt to probe through parliamentary questions led to no greater success than in Committee or, I fear, than we will have today. However, let us give it another try.
      If we cannot make any progress on costs, I may have to press the point on Third Reading. I have some comments to make now, but I have further comments on the Bill's financial effects and its effects on public service manpower. Third Reading may be a more appropriate time for that. To keep my comments brief, I want simply to reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire said. It is reasonable to ask

      839
      the Minister or the Bill's promoter for figures on the sort of costs known to be associated with the provision of information and some estimate of the costs that would result from the Bill so that we have some idea of the costs involved. We are asking not for precision but for relatively broad figures. A request for orders of magnitude is not unreasonable.
      Apart from good management and good government, I ask for this information because private Members' Bills to which no costs are attached are increasingly brought before the House. We are asked to pass them with blank cheques attached. That is unreasonable and unacceptable. Ideally, private Members' Bills should involve no additional public expenditure. If they do, that expenditure should be modest, and it should be shown far better than often happens. The importance of the amendment is that it gives the Minister and the promoter an opportunity to give us information and guidance to reassure us so that we can speed the Bill on its way.
      Mr. Waterson: This is an important Bill, but the amendment is also important and has my whole-hearted support. I endorse the comments my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).
      We are discussing the phrase
      "costs reasonably attributable to the supply of the information".
      As we have heard, in a recent written answer, the Minister usefully confirmed that under, I think, section 16 of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985, which the Bill would amend, the whole cost of providing information to the public is borne by the Department. The Bill represents a major departure, possibly a precedent, in such legislation. It is therefore fair to press the Minister a little further. I am sure that, in his usually helpful fashion, he will deal with the matter and say exactly what is envisaged.
      The Bill's aim could not be more laudable and I am sure that it enjoys cross-party support: it is to make more information available to the public and to make it as accessible as possible. Perhaps we are gradually moving more towards right to information legislation such as has existed in the United States for many years. It would make nonsense of that aspiration if the Bill included a practical deterrent to members of the public who wanted to seek out such information, as they no doubt will for valid and, for them, important reasons. It would be wrong to build deterrence into the charging structure. The amendment is very much a public interest argument, which is why I support it.
      Presumably, the Minister will in due course produce regulations setting out the precise nature of the charges, as is normal. For much of the previous Parliament, I served on the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which considered more than 3,000 statutory instruments a year. One feature which we often noticed on a cross-party and cross-House basis was, that in legislation with a set of charges in place to obtain documents or information, we were often dealing with statutory instruments that increased those charges. All too often, the charges were to be increased by a considerable multiple of the rate of increase in the cost of living. I am not saying that that has happened in the Minister's Department, but some Departments with a charging system in place were apt to seek to increase the charges dramatically.
      It would be helpful if the Minister would deal with the immediate proposal and give what the Americans call a ballpark idea of the figure about which we are talking.
      840
      He should try also to give an undertaking—as far as he can bind his successors or himself in the future—that the charges will not shoot up once the system is established, as that is a worry.
      All too often, the Treasury is a sinister ghostly presence, lurking in the background of legislation. In this case, it makes an appearance in the clause and is mentioned by name. At one end of the scale, the Minister could look at the simple cost of preparing photocopies of certain information. As a lawyer, I suggest that that is likely to be the most consistent interpretation of the wording of the clause. However, there are alternatives at the other end of the scale, including elements for staff costs, overheads and research.
      Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend will know that the subject of the internet was raised in Committee. I know little about the internet and care less, but I suspect that, although it is often regarded as a cost-free method of dissemination, there must be costs associated with putting information on the internet in a structured way to make it easily retrievable. To those costs one might add the cost of the famous reading room in York to which the Minister referred. The possibility of a range of costs may be more wide than my hon. Friend suggested.
      Mr. Waterson: My right hon. Friend makes a valid and, by his standards, modern point. Perhaps the Minister would like to factor that into his answer—perhaps he will put it on the internet.
      The central question is: what pound of flesh is the Treasury seeking in this instance? What orders has the Minister received from his Treasury colleagues? Are there guidelines in other legislation, or is there an accepted formula for producing the charging rates? As my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) said, it all comes down to working out the meaning of the word "attributable". As a matter of law, we are talking about causation and the link between the charge and the costs which led to it. Could it be argued that the costs of the original research are attributable for this purpose because the research is an absolute precondition to the information being available in the first place? That matter needs to be addressed. If, as I hope and expect, the Minister gives a reassuring response, what would be the harm of putting the amendment in the Bill to make it clear?
      I think it was Oscar Wilde who spoke about a man who knew the cost of everything and the value of nothing. In this instance, we are talking about information which will have a potentially high value for those seeking and receiving it, but also—we hope—will have a low cost to obtain. This is an important point of principle, not a minor matter, so it is worthy of the consideration that I am sure the Minister will have given it. It would be right to have some guidance clearly stated in the Bill.
      Mrs. Llin Golding: I shall not detain the House long, but I am slightly puzzled about the question of cost. Will there be any cost to the Ministry from the provision of information relating to the withdrawal of a pesticide that was previously considered safe?
      I bring to the attention of the House the question of Rose Clear—the spray that was withdrawn. I still cannot understand why it was withdrawn, because, despite all my

      841
      letters to the Ministry, the only information I was able to obtain was that it was an irritant when sprayed into the eyes. Most things are an irritant if they are sprayed into someone's eyes and I was never able to find out why Rose Clear in particular was withdrawn. Huge costs must have been involved in the withdrawal and, since withdrawal was the Ministry's decision, did the Ministry bear any of those costs and does the Bill mean that it will bear such costs in future?
      12.45 pm
      Mr. Rooker: First, I shall deal, albeit probably inadequately, with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding). I have a very modest garden, but I remember, when Rose Clear was withdrawn, finding a bottle on the shelf in the garage. I freely admit that I continued to use it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] It was a tiny bottle and it soon went. I do not know what the costs of the withdrawal were—obviously, the decision was taken by one of my predecessors in the previous Administration. If my hon. Friend continues to be unhappy with the letters I send her, I shall look further into the matter and reply to her separately.
      Mrs. Golding: I have never asked my hon. Friend for further information. Rose Clear was withdrawn under the previous Administration and it is to them that I wrote.
      Mr. Rooker: There are many people still writing to me about Rose Clear. I shall look into the matter, because my hon. Friend asked a specific question about the cost to the Ministry of the withdrawal. Although I do not carry the information around with me, I should say that pesticides are regularly withdrawn. I remember answering a question asked by the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) some months ago and being astonished to find that a number of pesticides, running into several hundreds, had been withdrawn for many reasons. There had been no complaint, because that is part of the process of regulation and of the coming and going of products.
      The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) asked about the reference which I made in Committee to administration costs. What I said was true: I had been to York, visited the pesticides safety directorate as part of my responsibility and seen the reading room. The point which I was making to the Committee—inadequately, I admit—was that we have a world-class organisation in the pesticides safety directorate, as we do in the veterinary medicines directorate, and overseas researchers and manufacturers queue up to come and see the way we regulate. Sometimes, they want their products regulated and registered in Britain, because we have a good organisation and they know that they can market their product if they go through our regulatory process.
      My point is that people visit York to see the procedures we use there and the information that is retained there and to experience the way we do things. It is an educational process, for which we do not charge because it is part of the "public good" cost of running the PSD. I realise that some of the costs come back via the levy and, as has been said, we have recently reduced the charges. However, we do not make a charge for that activity by the PSD and we do not intend to start charging for it. It is good for
      842
      Britain that we have people coming from overseas to see part of the Ministry and our regulatory process. We have a world-class organisation.
      Mr. Forth: Is the Minister saying that there can and should be no distinction drawn between the provision of information to United Kingdom citizens on the one hand and to foreign nationals and companies on the other; or does he at least admit the possibility that it would not be unreasonable to draw that distinction and charge overseas individuals more? From his remarks, it is clear that a significant element of the costs incurred are attributable to use by non-UK nationals and businesses.
      Mr. Rooker: No. The right hon. Gentleman misunderstands my, probably inadequate, explanation. At York, we run seminars for international groups of visitors, from universities and from Government Departments throughout the world. They do not walk away with the type of documents relating to the individual pesticides whose availability the Bill provides for. There is a collaborative process. Occasionally, people from this country take the pesticides safety directorate roadshow, so to speak, to overseas Governments, and to overseas universities for collaborative work. The issue of pesticides and veterinary medicines is not confined within the borders of specific countries; it is international.
      The information that we make available in seminars and overseas visits relates to the overall regulatory process—the checks and balances—whereas the Bill would make available precise information relating to specific pesticides and to the regulatory process and the information that we had been given.
      In that regard, there is a paradox in the Bill. There is a cost to the taxpayer and there is a cost to the individual who makes the request. One must always divide the area where the public good meets the private good. I repeat what I said in Committee: it is not our intention to start to introduce new charges, such as charges for the reading room at York.
      If we put pesticides information on the internet, although we would not charge, there might be a resultant saving. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food website, which is separate from MAFF, is one of the most visited sites on the internet. There is a BSE site as well. Both sites are regularly updated. Journalists are encouraged to use those sites. When they obtain information from the internet, it reduces the need for them to telephone Whitehall place and Nobel house for information. That reduces pressure, at a time when an increasing amount of information is required from the information department in MAFF.
      Although I would not claim that we can cut the information department or lower the costs, I can say that good use of the internet can control increased costs in future, when we might be churning out more and more information. People are encouraged to use the internet, and they are responding. If we have a good website service, more people will be encouraged to use it. By definition, I hope, a reasonable person would not expect the cost of information officers in MAFF to burgeon. To that extent, use of the internet is important.
      As I said in Committee, essentially we are talking about the cost of further photocopying—the cost of supplying paper. By and large, we already charge people for making

      843
      information available in evaluations. The price depends on the number of documents, the size and the maximum. We now have a maximum set price of £25. Sometimes information is provided free in correspondence, or is provided in priced publications.
      We do not intend to put onerous costs on people for the information that will flow from the Bill, which will include detailed regulations. The price should not go beyond the cost of providing the necessary paperwork. Paperwork can run to thousands of sheets, so we must consider that matter in due course, but currently the maximum cost to the user is £25.
      We are under no pressure from the Treasury to use the Bill as a money-making measure. We would reject any such pressure, partly because part of the pesticides safety directorate is run by a levy on the industry, which means, in turn, that the industry is entitled to know the costs. Recently, we have been able to reduce costs, partly as a result of the directorate's efficiency.
      Mr. Paice: I want to clarify the costs issue. The Minister helpfully outlined the costs involved. However, I bring back to the written answer that he gave me four days ago, in which he said:
      "An estimate of the cost of provision of this service cannot be provided without incurring disproportionate costs." — [Official Report, 23 March 1998; Vol. 309, c. 74.]
      On what basis will the Government work out the charging mechanism that will be in the Bill?
      Mr. Rooker: It could be the marginal cost of the purchase of the paper and the photocopying. We could walk up and down the high streets of this country and see how much photocopying costs. I do not expect the costs to be much higher than that. I am not prepared to ask officers of MAFF or the pesticides safety directorate to conduct a huge exercise and employ consultants to calculate the existing costs. According to the information that I have received, those costs are very small. Obviously, one can never tell what will happen when new information areas are opened, but we shall have better information when the regulations are drafted.
      In my written answer, I also pointed out that, in 1997, we had a list of 47 organisations that we contacted automatically and provided with information. We dealt with only 98 one-off requests for evaluation documents in 1997, and only seven of those requests sought underlying data. Many requests may be met reasonably through correspondence rather than by providing underlying data.
      Mr. Waterson: I know that the Minister is trying to be helpful. If he is not in a position today to give us the likely specific cost, will he address my other point and assure the House that, whatever the initial cost, it will not be increased in future by more than inflation?
      Mr. Rooker: The answer is yes. In asking the House to reject the amendment, I stress that, under the Bill as it is presently drafted, it will be illegal for the pesticides safety directorate to exceed the costs that are related only to the supply of information—which does not include the regulatory process or research.
      Mr. Bradshaw: I think that there is a slight misunderstanding about the costs involved. It is not about
      844
      the costs of the regulatory procedure, which occurs anyway. The details are available: it is simply a matter of how much it will cost to make them public.
      I make one point that the Minister omitted to mention in terms of accessibility and the cost of getting information at present and in the future. As well as the internet, I understand that the pesticides safety directorate in York and the Health and Safety Executive in Bootle provide copies of documents free to libraries and education establishments around the country. Therefore, if people cannot afford to travel to York, they can receive free of charge the information that they need.
      In asking the hon. Gentleman to ask leave to withdraw the amendment, I point out that its wording is worse than what appears in my Bill—which I believe is an improvement on existing legislation. The Bill refers to restricting the cost of the supply of information, whereas the old wording refers to a "reasonable fee". It does not restrict the fee to the cost of simply supplying the information. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider that fact and ask leave to withdraw his amendment.
      Mr. Paice: I am grateful to the Minister and to the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw). I accept the hon. Gentleman's claim that the Bill is an improvement on existing legislation—I do not detract from that statement. However, the amendment is based on my concern about the phrase "reasonably attributable". Once we introduce a qualification such as that, the matter is open to debate. My amendment seeks to limit the scope of debate about the phrase "reasonably attributable".
      I accept the Minister's assurance that his Department has no intention of profiteering on the back of this measure and that the Treasury is not pressuring him to do so. I have no doubt that that is true today. However, my concern is always not what a Minister may say, in all honesty, today, but what one of his successors may decide to do at some stage in the future. A Bill is not only for today, but for all eternity—or at least for a long period.
      Nevertheless, this has been a good debate, and I welcome the Minister's comments. It is extremely important that he ensures that the pesticides safety directorate abides by his words and does not impose charges that are not connected with the actual copying, typing or whatever of information. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Order for Third Reading read.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time. — [Mr. Bradshaw.]
      12.59 pm
      Mr. Peter Atkinson: I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) did not move amendment No. 3, as it related to important aspects of the Bill that should have been discussed. On the face of it, the Bill allows access to greater information about pesticides, but it contains draconian measures that give me cause for considerable concern.
      My first objection is that this is not a private Member's Bill; it is a Government handout Bill. The Minister admitted that it is a Government Bill that had been kicking around on the shelves of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food under the previous Government,

      845
      and it was still kicking around on the shelves of MAFF under this Government, until someone pulled it down, dusted it off and put it into the House.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: If the hon. Gentleman had that objection to every Bill that had started on a Government shelf, the number of Bills going through the House in private Members' time with the general agreement of the House would probably be reduced by about three quarters. If private Members had the drafting back-up of the civil service, we could all produce Bills, but sadly, as yet, we do not.
      Mr. Atkinson: I regret that a Liberal Democrat is going along with the system. Back-Bench Members have fewer and fewer powers, rights and opportunities to make their voice heard in the Chamber. One such opportunity is the private Members' Bill system. I accept that Government Bills will be picked up under the private Members' ballot system. I confess that I did that myself when I was a new Member, but I think that it is an abuse of the House.
      The Bill, which extends powers considerably, has not been properly debated. It was given a Second Reading on the nod. It went to Committee, where it was debated for less than 30 minutes. Only half the matters were discussed.
      The Bill extends powers from Ministers to local authorities, and allows local authorities to appoint others to break into people's houses with a warrant and to search business premises. Its amendments to schedule 2 to the 1985 Act are draconian. It lists the powers in relation to searching ships, aircraft, houses and containers, and it provides for people to be dealt with if they do not answer questions properly. The officers empowered under the Bill are given the powers of police officers. That aspect of the Bill has not been debated at all. I was hoping that my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire would move his amendment, so that we could debate that aspect, which causes me such concern.
      It is a pity that we chuck the Bill, half dealt with and not properly considered, through to the House of Lords so that it can do what this House has not done. The Bill should not be allowed to pass without concern being expressed by hon. Members about the abuse of the private Members' Bill system, because the Bill has taken away another hon. Member's opportunity for a debate on his or her own Bill.
      1.2 pm
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I shall deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) and one other. Many Bills that go through the House and which have had Government support never get on to the Floor in Government time, because the Government also have time constraints. It is not a party matter. The hon. Gentleman admitted that the same happened when he was first here, under a Conservative Administration. Little changes in the law—one-clause or two-clause changes—often do not feature in the Government's plan when they present big Bills to the House.
      The fact that when a Back Bencher is looking for a Bill to promote, he finds out which Bills in an area of interest are waiting on the shelf is, in itself, no argument against
      846
      the system. Let me give the hon. Gentleman an example. I should love to reform the law on inquests. I know that there has been a file on the Home Office desk for years on reform of inquests, but nobody has done anything about it. One of the Bills that I would consider if I ever won the ballot—I do not know what one has to do—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I would rather the hon. Gentleman did not stray into the way in which the House works, but stuck to the Bill's Third Reading.
      Mr. Hughes: I accept your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I rest my case on the fact that we have many opportunities, but taking Bills from the Government would not be appropriate.
      My substantive point is that the issue matters hugely to the public, who are generally concerned about pesticides—their impact and information about them. Anything that we can do to ensure better access to information, provided in a controlled way, should be welcomed.
      I am one of the Bill's sponsors, because I believe that it is a matter of public concern about which there should be maximum information. There was an opportunity to raise issues in Committee, where the Bill could have been debated longer, but hon. Members chose not to. The public hugely support the Bill's general thrust.
      Mr. Cynog Dais: May I just say to the hon. Gentleman that every minute is now precious? It is terribly important to some of us that the fourth Bill on the list, the Road Traffic Reduction (National Targets) Bill, receives its Third Reading.
      Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman makes a point which we all understand about Fridays. I support his Bill.
      The public will benefit from the Pesticides Bill, which I hope will receive Third Reading without opposition in the House and go on to further consideration in another place.
      1.5 pm
      Mrs. Golding: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) on his fine Bill. On behalf of all those who fish and care about the rivers in this country, may I say that the Bill will be of great help to people who find pollution in those rivers? On behalf of all fishermen, I thank my hon. Friend for taking the time and effort to introduce this important Bill.
      1.6 pm
      Sir Richard Body: I have one eye on the clock as I am conscious that we have some good Bills yet to discuss.
      I rise to speak only because it is said that pesticides are used more extensively in my constituency than anywhere else in the United Kingdom. At the same time, the incidence of two sorts of cancer is, according to the cancer map, worse there than in any other part of the United Kingdom. Many of my constituents therefore see a connection.

      847
      I welcome the Bill, although I appreciate that it contains defects. It is a mouse of a Bill—a nice mouse or perhaps a dormouse of a Bill. I hope that the Minister agrees that it does not go far enough, and I look forward to him introducing a Government Bill that will go far further, on the assumption that the proposed freedom of information Bill will not go quite as far as either of us would like.
      1.7 pm
      Mr. Paice: I, too, understand the desire to move on.
      I congratulate the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) on promoting the Bill which, as has been said several times, was already in the frame under the previous Government. It therefore has the support of Conservative Members.
      I understand the disappointment of my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) that I did not move amendment No. 3 or speak to the amendments in that group. That was partly because of an answer that I received from the Minister earlier this week stating that, despite all the concerns, in 1997 no pesticides were seized or destroyed by inspectors when they visited farms. Another reason for not moving the amendment was my understanding that, assuming the Bill receives its Third Reading, it will proceed to the other place, where the amendments that I did not speak to will receive a better hearing. They involve legal technicalities that may well require the judgment of those in the other place, who perhaps have more expertise in such matters than I do.
      The Opposition congratulate the hon. Member for Exeter and are more than happy to agree to the Bill's Third Reading.
      1.8 pm
      Mr. Rooker: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw). The Bill's two key parts—access to information and improvement of the enforcement mechanism—although discussed only briefly in Committee, were debated to the satisfaction of hon. Members, who considered the matters both before the Bill entered Committee and in Committee. This House is not the final arbiter. Down the corridor, the other place will also look at the Bill in its entirety, and if it is dissatisfied, it will send it back.
      I understand the displeasure of the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) at a Back Bencher promoting a Bill that was proposed by the previous Government, but frankly, the Bill is for the greater good of the public. It is up to each hon. Member, successful or otherwise in the ballot, to choose the subject of a Bill. It is not for Governments to impose Bills on Back Benchers.
      1.9 pm
      Mr. Ben Bradshaw: I reassure the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) that although I have taken on a Bill that was around for a long time and dusted it off, that does not mean that I do not feel strongly about the issues that it raises. The hon. Members for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and for Boston and Skegness (Sir R. Body) made the important point that there is growing public concern. There is also a certain amount of scientific evidence that increases concern about long-term effects of pesticide use and consumption, especially in relation to cancer and infectious diseases.
      Mr. Peter Atkinson: I want to make it clear that I have no objection to the Bill. I object to the Bill, worthy as it may be, not being debated in Government time. The Government have pinched private Members' time.
      Mr. Bradshaw: I am not here to defend a system about which I am still learning after only 10 months in the House.
      The hon. Member for Hexham also said that the Bill was draconian. The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness said that it was a dormouse of a Bill. I hope that it is rather more than that, and that it is not as draconian as the hon. Member for Hexham would have us think. Some of the measures that he mentioned, such as bursting into people's homes and boarding hovercrafts and boats, are in the original Food and Environment Protection Act 1985, which is nothing to do with my Bill. This Bill simply makes the enforcement procedure fairer and more effective. He may also have overlooked the fact that the Bill is concerned with not only pesticides in agriculture but those used in people's homes. To deprive enforcement officers of the possibility of being able to enter a home and take photographs, or to pass other measures in the amendments that the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) wanted to move, is to lose sight of an aspect of pesticide control.
      We have had a full and open debate, and I do not want to hold up procedures any longer. I know that other hon. Members' Bills, about which their promoters feel very strongly, are yet to be discussed. I hope that the House feels that the Bill improves public access and the enforcement system. In the light of recent food scares, it is in the interest not only of consumers but of producers and the industry that public confidence in the safety of food and the environment is increased. It is a question of credibility. I hope that the Bill will help to restore and safeguard that confidence, and I commend it to the House.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  Animal Health (Amendment) Bill
  Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered. Order for Third Reading read.
  1.12 pm
  Mr. Paul Flynn: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  The Pesticides Bill was described as a mouse of a Bill, but this Bill is protozoan in its modesty. It will, however, significantly improve animal welfare. It is a one-clause Bill intended to perform two functions.
  The first function is to give more security and certainty to laws that stipulate that premises where animals are held in quarantine are secure. That ensures that animals do not escape and that any case of rabies does not spread from animal to animal or from animal to human.
  The second function is to fill a gap in the law. At the moment, inspectors have no right to enter kennels where there might be misuse of animals. Unfortunately, I have heard of 100 distressing cases of animals being neglected or misused, or where symptoms of ill health have not been spotted. I shall not burden the House with the details.
  The quarantine industry is well run. Of the 81 existing kennels, all but five have a good record of abiding by the voluntary code of practice laid down by the Ministry. Three have refused to take part, and two, when examined, did not come up to the necessary standards. Those are improving their standards. I do not wish to name the offending kennels that are not covered by the Bill, because I hope that they will be persuaded by the example set by the Bill and come in and adopt the necessary standards of welfare.
  The Bill will help us to reduce the anxiety and distress that owners of companion animals suffer when their animals go into quarantine—not only because of the length of time that they are to be parted from the animals, but because of the awful uncertainty about conditions in the kennels. It will also go some way towards reducing man's inhumanity to defenceless animals.
  1.15 pm
  Mr. Eric Forth: I welcome the Bill for several reasons, not least because it strikes me as being almost the ideal candidate for private Members' legislation. I say to its promoter, the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), that it is modest but important in its aspirations, and relatively non-controversial. It also has another quality that to me is as important as anything: it carries no direct public expenditure implications, and therefore does not require a money resolution or a Ways and Means resolution.
  I also welcome the Bill because it seeks to strengthen and reinforce the excellent and long-standing system of quarantine that we enjoy in this country, which I strongly support.
  I wonder in passing how possible it is that the intentions and effects of the Bill may give rise to an increase in costs at kennels, and therefore in charges made for quarantine purposes. To the extent to which that may happen, could the Bill risk deterring people from going through the proper quarantine procedures, and encourage them to seek to evade the rules?
  850
  There is a balance to be struck—I accept what the hon. Member for Newport, West said about that—between making quarantine secure and attractive, and causing any danger of costs escalating to the point where we could move in the opposite direction and find that we were deterring people from using quarantine properly. I mention that possibility simply to put down a marker.
  There is another reason why I welcome the Bill. My eye was caught by an article in the New Scientist on 17 January, entitled, "Price of Pet Freedom". It pointed out that, apart from safeguarding us against rabies, which is the element of the system usually mentioned,
  "quarantine also guards Britain from other dangerous diseases."
  The article continues:
  "quarantine kennels regularly detect and treat other animal diseases that are prevalent on the Continent".
  It goes on to list some of those. I shall not attempt to do so myself, mainly because I could not pronounce them—but they sound pretty frightening to me.
  That important element of our quarantine system is sometimes overlooked, and people tend, understandably, to discuss it more narrowly in terms of rabies alone. The fact that they then construct an argument for doing away with our quarantine provisions is wrong, based on that narrow view, and regrettable. One of the valuable aspects of the Bill is that, to the extent to which it strengthens our quarantine provisions and makes them more secure, it helps to perform a useful public service, in trying to ensure that those other diseases do not come into this country.
  The Bill is appropriate on a variety of levels. It is timely and it does something that is both modest and sensible. For those reasons, I give it my whole-hearted support.
  1.18 pm
  Mr. James Paice: I, too, support the Bill, but wish to raise just one issue. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on, as he said, filling a little gap in the legislation. However, one aspect of the impact of the Bill to which he did not refer is that it would allow the Minister to make regulations on animal welfare in quarantine kennels. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), has already said that although the minimum standards are acceptable, the code of practice requires higher standards, which should be legislated for.
  If the Government use the Bill as a basis for improving welfare standards in quarantine kennels, the owners of those premises will incur costs. I do not wish to debate whether it is right or wrong to improve welfare standards; I am concerned only about the cost that would be incurred as a result.
  The Government are also reviewing quarantine regulations, and have published a discussion document containing five options for reforming the quarantine regulations. I understand why my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) wants no change in the status quo, but others take a different view. I challenge the Government on the timing of the outcome of their deliberations on the future of quarantine. If they decide that quarantine as we know it should stop, and that it should be replaced by vaccinations or pet

  851
  passports—I refer to quarantine within the European Union, rather than animals coming from countries where rabies is endemic—that will dramatically reduce the demand for quarantine facilities. The Government must not load significant costs on kennel owners by forcing them to improve their facilities if, within a year or two, they might have no business from which to recover those costs.
  I hope that the Minister can allay my concerns by saying that he will either not produce regulations on the welfare of animals in quarantine until we know the outcome of the Government's deliberations on quarantine, or ensure that any change in the system will be made on such a time scale that anyone who invests in facilities as a result of the Bill will have time to recover the costs.
  1.21 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I welcome this modest proposal, which the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) modestly presented to the House. He is a constituent of mine, and I often support him. I hope that the House will support the Bill and not be distracted by arguments about quarantine changes, which can be dealt with at a later date.
  1.22 pm
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn).
  I appreciate the point made by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth): it is a myth that quarantine is all about rabies. The pressure mounted by lobby groups to abolish the quarantine laws ignores all the other issues raised in the New Scientist article to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. We should therefore not rush judgment on that issue. It is not a question of not wanting to be the Government who let rabies into the country. This matter goes well beyond rabies, to issues such as climatic change and bugs discovered in quarantine cells.
  All those matters are being thoroughly examined by a group of experts headed by Professor Kennedy, and we expect to receive its report in May or June. If it decides
  852
  that one or more of the five options are as good as, or better than, the status quo, we shall go to full public consultation. I cannot forecast when or whether the usual quarantine regulations will be changed.
  The Bill has another good quality—it started life as a ten-minute Bill. I always think that it is a real plus when an hon. Member manages to put something on the statute book by using that process.
  We currently have no powers to enforce the welfare code. Thousands of pet owners assume that because the quarantine kennels are registered by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, they have a seal of approval—that is not the case. We may need to establish a star rating for the quality of welfare.
  To avoid doubt about the numbers involved, I refer hon. Members to columns 270–73 of yesterday's Hansard, which contain the written answer that I gave to the question tabled by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) on quarantine establishments. I said that, in 1997, the total throughput of all the quarantine premises in England included 3,351 cats, 4,028 dogs, 29 rabbits, 11 ferrets, five guinea pigs, one rat, two gerbils and four chinchilla. All those animals deserved to be looked after properly. The cost to owners is substantial—owners must be able to put their pets in quarantine kennels secure in the knowledge that they will be well looked after. The Government support the Bill, and I hope that the House will give it its Third Reading.
  1.25 pm
  Mr. Flynn: I am very grateful for the comments that have been made. It is not anticipated that there will be any additional costs on the great mass of owners of premises, as they accepted the previous Government's sensible policy of operating the code of conduct and conditions with the co-operation of the industry. The only purposes of the Bill in that respect are to eliminate rogue operators who may not comply with the regulations, and to deal with changes of ownership. I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  Road Traffic Reduction (National Targets) Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Road Traffic Reduction (National Targets) Bill
    New clause 2

      NEEDS OF THE ELDERLY AND FAMILIES WITH YOUNG CHILDREN
      '.—In considering how to comply with the requirements of section 2(1) and (2) of this Act the Secretary of State shall have regard to—

      (a) the mobility needs of the elderly and

      (b) the mobility needs of families with young children;

      and any increase in the volume of traffic that may result from the fulfilment of those needs.'. — [Mr. Chope]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      1.26pm
      Mr. Christopher Chope: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 9, in clause 2, page 1, line 27, at end insert '() noise'.
      No. 13, in page 1, line 27, at end insert
      '(3A) In considering how to comply with the requirements of subsections (1) and (2), the Secretary of State shall have regard to—

      (a) the mobility needs of persons with disabilities, and

      (b) the need for an adequate provision of taxi services in rural and non-rural areas.'.

      Mr. Chope: First, I point out that amendment No. 13, which was tabled by the promoter, the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis), is the same as new clause 1, which I tabled, but which was not selected for debate.
      It will not have escaped the notice of the House that clause 2 was substantially rewritten in Committee. Indeed, the whole Bill was changed, including its title, which used to refer to "United Kingdom targets". We may be able to say more about that when we discuss the next group of amendments.
      I am delighted that the promoter tabled amendment No. 13 and that it is supported by the Minister. It arises from the concern, which I expressed in Committee, that the Bill differentiated between good and bad road traffic—it placed all cars and lorries in the bad category, and all public transport vehicles, however polluting, in the good category.
      Clause 1 was amended in Committee so that the definition of road traffic excluded all vehicles with capacity for eight or more passengers. I said in Committee that road traffic comprising vehicles carrying or designed to carry people with disabilities were good, and that the Bill should specify those vehicles as well as public transport vehicles that could carry eight or more passengers.
      I also said that the elderly and the disabled often found it more appropriate to travel by taxi. The Minister was reluctant to accept any of my arguments in Committee, but, when pressed by her hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) and for Lancaster
      854
      and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), who took her to task for not defining taxis as good vehicles, she relented and put her name to amendment No. 13.
      I shall concentrate on new clause 2, which builds on the argument that the hon. Member for Ceredigion and the Minister have now accepted on the mobility needs of people with disabilities. The new clause would require the Secretary of State to have regard not merely to the mobility needs of persons with disabilities and the need for adequate taxi services in rural and non-rural areas when considering how to comply with the requirements, of clause 2(1) and (2), but to
      "the mobility needs of the elderly and … the mobility needs of families with young children;
      and any increase in the volume of traffic that may result from the fulfilment of those needs."
      That is obvious common sense. Many supermarkets and shopping centres make special parking provision for families with young children because they recognise the mobility needs of such families.
      Mr. Eric Forth: I hope that my hon. Friend will not think this a frivolous question—it is not intended as such—but what has he in mind when he says young children? Obviously, that is open to interpretation. In discussing the matter with some of my constituents, I found that one of the problems they find it most difficult to come to terms with is the large volume of traffic caused by parents taking children to school. Would the amendment cover that group, and how young are the children that he has in mind?
      Mr. Chope: I was thinking of children up to the age of 10, perhaps, most of whom have to rely on parents, friends and relatives to transport them not merely to school but to places of recreation. I am the father of two children under 10, and I do not expect them to go on trips on their own. They are wholly dependent on their parents and others to transport them. I would certainly not allow my children to go out on their own on the roads on bicycles or to walk.
      That is the group of people I had in mind and it is a topical subject today because the Government are crowing about the fact that they will provide extra nursery school places this autumn—60,000 extra, I think. Without doubt, more traffic will result. I am saying that it is a good thing even if more traffic is generated—I see the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope) nodding from the Government Front Bench—to enable people to take advantage of those extra places. However, the Government have not put anything on the record to show that they regard it as a good thing. Indeed, the whole tone of this debate has been how important it is to reduce road traffic, yet the Government are today promoting a policy that would increase it. I hope that the Minister will tell us why she thinks—if she does think it—that it is not reasonable that there should be an increase in road traffic as a result of that policy announcement.
      The merits of the new clause speak for themselves. Once the House, the Government and the promoter had accepted the principle lying behind their amendment No. 13, it logically followed that my new clause should also be accepted.
      Amendment No. 9 would add noise to the items listed as adverse impacts of road traffic. It is conspicuous in its absence in the Bill and we know from our constituents that it is a significant concern. Many of my constituents are affected by road traffic noise.

      855
      New clause 2 refers to the special needs of elderly people, who form a high proportion of my constituents. I know the extent to which they depend on motor vehicles to fulfil their transport needs.
      Mr. Forth: I welcome the new clause, because it opens up debate on the Bill's undifferentiated approach to road traffic, which is a weakness. As hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) said, it is dangerous to regard all things with wheels as undesirable and to press for reduced traffic in some undifferentiated way. Such an approach is unproductive. The new clause teases out legitimate mobility needs which it might, in some cases, be desirable to meet. He mentioned the issue of meeting such needs in the context of this morning's announcement on nursery provision.
      Even those who dislike motor vehicles and believe that traffic should be reduced must accept that there has to be a degree of differentiation between vehicles. In my view, several elements of traffic are essential components of modern living. Many people regret the increase in the number of out-of-town supermarkets, but it is a reality. An enormous development involving millions of square feet of retail and recreation space is being completed near my constituency. Many people and families from my constituency and elsewhere will want to visit it in all weathers in the security of their own vehicles.
      We must be clearer about traffic of which we disapprove and therefore want to reduce, and about traffic that must be accepted as inevitable or even desirable. My hon. Friend mentioned elderly people, whose views should be listened to carefully. Many elderly people feel much more secure and comfortable in their own cars; indeed, it would be difficult for frail or disabled elderly people to use public transport, even if it were superb, modern, low-cost and secure.
      At the other end of the spectrum are people with young children. It is legitimate or even highly desirable to take children to and from leisure, family and social activities in a car. I deliberately did not mention taking children to and from school. Many people in many areas experience traffic difficulties caused by people taking children, especially primary school children, to and from school by car, which is a recent development.
      There is much less traffic on our roads during school holidays, but we are still faced with traffic problems. How should they be solved? If one argues for a dramatic reduction, perhaps to zero, of parents taking young children to school by car, one has to suggest an alternative. It is arguable whether it is feasible, logistically or in terms of cost, to envisage a school bus system that could fully replace all the journeys that now take place.
      The onus is on those who support the Bill, and talk about the desirability of traffic reduction, to suggest which categories of traffic they believe can and should be reduced and how that could be achieved. What does one say to elderly people, who may be frail or unsteady on their feet? How can we tell them that we do not want their cars on the roads any more? How can we demand that they use public transport? What do we say to the parents of young children in urban areas, where they might feel threatened occasionally, or in rural areas, with longer distances to travel? Can we tell them that we will provide a satisfactory alternative means of transport for their children to reduce traffic?
      856
      I mentioned out-of-town supermarkets, those much criticised but much used facilities. It is odd how many people rush to criticise the out-of-town supermarket but use them happily. I myself happily use both an in-town and an out-of-town supermarket. With many parents both working, the weekly shop in a supermarket with adequate parking facilities has become part of the modern way of life and necessarily involves the use of a car. When I go shopping, as I do every week with my wife, our weekly shopping just for the two of us is more than I can envisage carrying on public transport. There is too much to carry other than in a car. I surmise that those with families must have to deal with much larger volumes of shopping. Is such traffic to be reduced? If so, what is the reasonable alternative?
      If we are make sense of the Bill-if it is not to be merely declaratory or wishful thinking or comforting-it is essential that we take a much more detailed approach to it, as suggested in the new clause, and face up to the realities of modern life and the relationship that modern communities have with their motor cars. We must examine which categories of traffic can be criticised and expected to be reduced, and what the alternatives might be. When we reach that stage, we might begin to make some progress.
      I welcome the new clause, and I hope that it will be accepted so that we can make more sense of the Bill than has hitherto been the case. I hope that we will have some encouraging news on that point from either the Minister or the promoter of the Bill.
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: I rise briefly to support the new clause. I am a car user, but, as a cyclist, I am also a supporter of the bicycle. When I first encountered Hyde park corner, I removed my bike from the road, took to the pavement and thought, "There's no way I can go round this." I then decided that I had as much right to use Hyde park corner as any motorist and embarked on the journey round it. I found that if one declared one's intentions sufficiently determinedly to motor transport, one tended to be given as much right to the highway as others enjoyed.
      I wish to add to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) about the elderly. It is important that when Ministers draw up the reports required by the Bill, they take particular account of the needs of the elderly, for whom the car is an important factor. As people approach old age, they realise that limitations are inevitably imposed on their independence. The motor car confers on them a continuing independence that would otherwise go the way of other forms of independence that they enjoy. It is not only a question of being able to use the car whenever they want but of feeling that, like the telephone, it is there for family emergencies and other circumstances.
      I urge the Minister to consider seriously the needs of the elderly, along the lines suggested in respect of families with young children by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).
      1.45 pm
      Amendment No. 9 would add noise to the list of adverse impacts of road traffic to be taken into consideration in drawing up the report. That is an

      857
      important factor and a noticeable omission from the list. When we were considering the original scheme for the Birmingham northern relief road, which would have gone through part of my then constituency, traffic noise was important to my constituents. We considered the relative impacts of different road surfaces. We noted that concrete surfaces tend to give off much more noise than do tarmac surfaces, despite what the Department of Transport said at the time about the scientific evidence showing that there was little difference. The truth is that the public perception is that tarmac road surfaces are less intrusive than concrete ones.
      The Blackwater valley relief road in Aldershot uses a tarmac surface which has produced noticeably less noise than the surfaces of surrounding motorways. I hope that the noise factor will be added to the Bill. I say to the promoter of the Bill, as much as to the Minister, that I hope that that will be taken on board. With those two observations, I support the new clause.
      Mr. Cynog Dafis (Ceredigion): On new clause 2, it is worth pointing out that mobility does not necessarily mean mobility in a motorised vehicle. Mobility can be enhanced by a reduction in the number of motorised vehicles. Some hon. Members know about the safe routes to school initiative, which enables children to get to school at peak travelling times through various methods facilitated locally. We need to consider the matters mentioned in the new clause.
      On the comments of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), the Bill is based on the assumption that it is possible to get a net reduction in road traffic, even recognising that in certain circumstances and in certain categories, there may well be increases. He should examine the work of various people on the subject, especially that of John Whitelegg, who shows clearly in what categories reduction can be brought about.
      We do not think that new clause 2 should be included in the Bill, although we recognise that the considerations that it mentions must be borne in mind in drawing up the strategy. We do not need to put a strategy in a Bill. More appropriate for a Bill is the principle of targets, as is recognised increasingly in Government policy and legislation.
      Finally, I am glad that we were able to table amendment No. 13 in response to concerns raised in Committee by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope).
      The Minister for Transport in London (Ms Glenda Jackson): I support amendment No. 13, standing in my name and that of the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis), and I oppose new clause 2 and amendment No. 9, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope).
      The hon. Members who spoke in support of new clause 2 and amendment No. 9 were espousing a policy of despair. They seemed to believe that it was virtually
      858
      impossible to reduce an over-dependence on the private car. They had no belief in a strategy to create an integrated transport system.
      Mr. Chope: Does the Minister agree that today's announcement on the extension of nursery education places by some 60,000 is bound to lead to an overall increase in the amount of road traffic?
      Ms Jackson: I had intended to touch on the particularly bizarre interpretation that the hon. Gentleman puts on an announcement by the Government which has been generally welcomed. The only person in the country who regards the provision of nursery places as leading automatically to an increase in traffic on our roads is the hon. Gentleman. Many of my constituents welcome the Government's provision of additional nursery places, in the knowledge that it will be possible for them to walk their children to such nursery places. It is not only education that parents value for their children, but the social skills inherent in such places.
      Mr. Chope: In that case, will the Minister make it a condition of the new nursery places that nobody can take them up if they use a car to transport their children to the nurseries?
      Ms Jackson: I question whether that contribution warrants any kind of response. The hon. Gentleman has moved from the bizarre to the overly fantastical.
      The majority of parents wish their children to take the provision because of the undoubted educational and social advantages inherent in the additional places provided by the Government. They prefer the knowledge that such establishments are within their local areas. A matter of parental, and grandparental, concern is the danger of an ever-increasing number of cars on the roads and the inability for children to play in their own street.
      New clause 2 refers to the needs of the elderly to get about, to see their families and to have social contact—all exclusively provided by the private car. Regrettably, this is the case in many instances because, for 18 long years, the previous Administration did little or nothing to create a properly integrated transport strategy. They actively introduced legislation which destroyed public transport as far as buses and the railways were concerned.
      This Government have been actively engaged in putting that right since we took office. I do not share the philosophy of despair emanating from the Opposition that it will be impossible to reduce an over-dependence on the private car. Public transport, allied with other policies, will reduce traffic on roads.
      The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) talked about cycles and, if he does not already know of it, I am sure that he will be delighted by the news that, despite tight spending limits, the Government have managed to find an additional £1 million for the London cycle network. We have asked that the money should be used strategically, especially to facilitate safe passage for cyclists around roundabouts.
      The hon. Member also raised the issue of elderly people's dependence on their cars, for example, in emergencies. There is nothing in this or any other Bill that will impact on the use of the private car in such circumstances. The general thrust of the Bill is to reduce

      859
      the seemingly unstoppable growth of traffic on our roads, which impacts particularly on the elderly and on children by creating environments that are highly dangerous.
      The hon. Gentleman supports amendment No. 9 and does not believe that the issue of noise pollution is sufficiently addressed in the Bill. I would argue that that is not the case: noise is covered by more than one of the sub-headings that the Secretary of State must consider in devising the targets he wishes to set, not least those issues connected with health and biodiversity.
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: I can see how noise comes under matters of health, although I think that it is not entirely a matter of health, but rather one of irritation as well as health; however, I cannot understand how biodiversity comes into it. Can the Minister give me some guidance?
      Ms Jackson: Certainly. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the Government are actively engaged in protecting sites of special scientific interest or sites where wildlife needs to be protected. The incursion of extreme noise in such areas can affect, for example, the breeding habits of birds. Therefore, if we regard our wildlife as part of a biodiverse structure, as I do, we see that noise can clearly inflict harm.
      On amendment No. 13, provision will undoubtedly need to be made for people with disabilities, especially orange badge holders. Every local authority gives consideration to the needs of such people, and I see no reason why the Bill should work against that.
      In addition, given the huge damage inflicted by the previous Administration on public transport in rural areas and because the current Government regard taxis as part of our public transport system, we believe that the amendment would enhance the Bill by covering two areas that require special notice in the legislation.
      The other two amendments are essentially based on the list principle and, as I said in Committee, the trouble with lists is that someone is always left out. In the light of my remarks, I hope that the hon. Member for Christchurch will not press new clause 2 and amendment No. 9.
      Mr. Chope: I disagree with almost everything the Minister has said. It will be noteworthy outside this place that she denies that 60,000 extra nursery school places will generate an increase in road traffic. That defies belief and shows that the Minister takes an unrealistic approach to the subject.
      Ms Glenda Jackson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Chope: No, because I want to make progress on the Bill and move on to the next group of amendments. I shall not press the new clause and the amendment, in the hope that the other place will be able to return to the issue and develop the list that the Minister has started in amendment No. 13. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New clause 3

      VEHICLE EXCISE DUTY AND HYDROCARBON OIL DUTY
      '() It shall be a duty of the Secretary of State to publish annually a report on forecasts of the effect of changes in vehicle excise duty and hydrocarbon oil duty upon the level of road traffic in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.'.—[Mr. Chope.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      2 pm
      Mr. Chope: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 6—Separate reports for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland—
      '.—It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State within six months of the commencement of this Act to publish separate figures for the incidence of road traffic in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
      Amendment No. 15, in clause 2, page 1, line 11, after 'England', insert 'other than London, London,'.
      Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 11, at end insert—

      '(1A) The Secretary of State shall not set targets under subsection (1)—

      (a) for Scotland, unless he has obtained the consent of the Scottish Parliament, or

      (b) for Wales, unless he has obtained the consent of the Welsh Assembly.'.

      Amendment No. 16, in page 1, line 11, at end insert—
      '(1A) The Secretary of State shall not set targets under subsection (1) in respect of London unless he has obtained the consent of the Mayor of London and any body known as Transport for London established following Cm 3897.'.
      Amendment No. 10, in page 2, line 7, at end insert
      'and before the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly.'.
      Mr. Chope: The thinking behind new clause 3 has its origins in this year's Red Book.
      Table 5.3 on page 78 sets out the environmental impact of the increases in taxes on motoring and motorists. The increases in taxes announced in the Budget give an extra Exchequer yield of £1,720 million in 1998–99–£1.7 billion. On page 153 of the Red Book they are described as environmental measures, but table 5.3 shows that the swingeing fuel duty increases will reduce car mileage in 2010 by only 1.875 billion car miles, given that the Government's road traffic forecasts predict 351 billion car miles in 2010.
      Those are very large figures, but in summary they show that less than half of 1 per cent. of the traffic that is predicted by the Government to be on our roads in 2010 will be removed as a result of those swingeing fuel duty increases.
      That is why flat increases in fuel duties have been attacked by the Automobile Association and other experts. Indeed, some people from Friends of the Earth are extremely sceptical about the environmental benefit of those swingeing increases, and they are saying that they are a most ineffective way of reducing increases in road traffic.
      It is worth pointing out that 125 billion fewer car miles per year must be travelled in 2010 if the Government are to achieve the target of the 10 per cent. traffic reduction

      861
      on 1990 figures signed up to in Hampstead high street by the Minister this time last year. That is 125 billion fewer car miles in 2010; the effect of the Budget is to reduce that amount by just 1.8 billion. There is an enormous credibility gap between what the Minister said in Hampstead high street and what Government policy will achieve, on the Government's own figures.
      New clause 3 would require the Government to produce separate forecasts of the effect of changes in motoring taxation on different parts of the country. That would fit the new wording of the Bill, which calls on—but does not require—the Secretary of State to
      "set … targets for road traffic reduction in England, Wales and Scotland."
      If the new clause were incorporated in the Bill, it would be possible to see how fairly the Government were allocating the extra proceeds of motoring taxation to public transport investment among the different parts of the United Kingdom. The Minister made much of public transport in her response to the previous short debate. In the Budget statement, the Chancellor of the Exchequer made much of his public transport package. He quoted a headline figure of £500 million, but, of course, when we examined the small print, we read that that was to be spread, not over one year, but over three, and that the £175 million total additional spending on public transport next year was only 10 per cent. of the extra tax yield from motorists.
      Of the £500 million over three years, £50 million-only 10 per cent.—was identified as available for rural areas and, of that, only £5 million for community-based initiatives. People outside London are bound to draw a contrast between the paltry sum made available for public transport in rural areas and areas outside London and the £300 million for London Underground.
      We were not told in the Budget statement that £300 million of the £500 million package that the Chancellor of the Exchequer talked about would be allocated to London Underground a few days later by the Deputy Prime Minister, leaving a paltry amount to be spread around other public transport needs.
      As we discussed in Committee, and as we are well aware, 35 per cent. of the population have access to regular public transport. Most of those people live in London—the city one of whose constituencies the Minister has the privilege to represent. However, an enormous number of people who live outside London—most of the other 65 per cent.—are paying the bulk of the fuel taxes because, by dint of geography and lack of public transport, they are obliged to travel further by car than those who live in the conurbation. People who live outside London are paying dearly through their taxes, and new clause 3 would force the Government to come clean about that.
      New clause 6 would require separate figures for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland with regard to road traffic forecasts. Those figures are not produced in the 1997 forecasts. Amendment No. 15 seeks separate targets for England other than London and for London. That is a reasonable amendment in light of the Government's recent London White Paper. Amendments Nos. 1, 16 and 10 seek the involvement of the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for
      862
      Wales, the mayor of London and Transport for London in this process. They are reasonable amendments advanced in an attempt to make the Bill better. It is already a better Bill as a result of the pressure that I applied in Committee, and I hope that the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis), and the Government will accept those amendments.
      Mr. Forth: I support amendment No. 1 and new clause 6. I take my cue in this matter from remarks of the Minister in Committee, which are relevant to my amendment. She said:
      "there is no equality between the four constituent parts of the United Kingdom in terms of car ownership … there are also wide disparities in economic potential and employment prospects. There are many other variations throughout the United Kingdom's comparatively small land mass."
      She went on to say:
      "In reducing greenhouses gases, for example, each of the four territories of the United Kingdom is responsible for playing its part in achieving national targets."
      Finally, and most tellingly, she said:
      "setting a flat rate for every territory of the United Kingdom to work towards would be unachievable, ineffective and not in the best interests of all the territories concerned."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 12 March 1998; c. 83.]
      That statement was helpful in Committee, and it will certainly assist our deliberations at this stage of the Bill's progress. Even more helpful were the comments of the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis), who said:
      "In the Bill, 'national' refers to England, Wales and Scotland. Let me clarify that 'UK targets' refers to the whole of the United Kingdom."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 19 March 1998; c. 84.]
      My amendment and new clause 6 would acknowledge the role that the new Scottish Parliament and the Welsh assembly will increasingly play in our governance. That point is directly relevant. Following the Minister's comments about the variations that exist throughout the United Kingdom—she mentioned several different factors—the hon. Member for Ceredigion went on to talk about England, Wales and Scotland. That leads inevitably to the realisation that the new bodies, which will be responsible for different parts of the United Kingdom, should and must be involved in the process of target setting that the Bill sets in train.
      Logically, we cannot have a national target comprising the totality of different regional targets while, as a result of the Government's constitutional changes, having bodies with extensive responsibilities for their own parts of the United Kingdom. Those same bodies must be an integral part of the process. Surely the Government, and particularly the hon. Member for Ceredigion—given his loyalties and those of his party—would want to ensure the maximum possible involvement of the new bodies, with their new responsibilities, in the process that the Bill requires. In saying that, I thought that I would be going with the flow of what may be characterised as "modern thinking". I am not the greatest devotee of the devolution process, but it is proceeding apace.
      That leads to another issue that was raised in Committee and on which the Minister may be able to help us further. Given what I am arguing about the responsibilities in Scotland and Wales, I assume that the figures for England will continue to be produced by the Department. That raises as an interesting side

      863
      issue the possibility of an English parliament. Recognition of the national identities and responsibilities in Scotland and Wales leaves us in the anomalous position that Whitehall and Westminster remain responsible for English matters because there is no other body to assume that responsibility. I shall not pursue that thought, but it is a consideration.
      I wish that I could have made specific reference to England in my amendment, but that would probably not have been allowed. The anomaly remains that we expect English figures to be produced by what remains of the national bodies in Westminster and Whitehall, whereas the regional figures, if I may call them that, will have to involve the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales.
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: Perhaps my right hon. Friend can help me. In drawing up the reports, as the United Kingdom Minister will be required to do, will he need the approval of the Scottish Parliament before drawing up targets for Scotland, as transport is not a power reserved to the Westminster Parliament?
      Mr. Forth: I am not sufficiently expert to give my hon. Friend a confident reply. In order for the national targets required by the Bill to be firmly based, in order to take account of the diversity and variety that the Minister pointed out so eloquently in Committee and in order to recognise the important role to be played by the Scottish Parliament and Welsh assembly, my amendment suggests that those bodies must be involved as an integral part of the process. Taken together with new clause 6, that produces a more coherent picture.
      It follows the logic of the previous group of amendments that we should recognise the huge diversity in the nature of traffic, and the vehicles and users that make up that traffic, and that, in parallel, we should take account of the regional variations in the United Kingdom in patterns of traffic and so on. It is well known that there are enormous variations between the large, empty spaces of most of Scotland and the traffic generated in and around London and the south-east of England.
      I hope that those comments are relatively uncontroversial and that they add to the effectiveness of the Bill, rather than detracting from it. I hope also that they take full account of the important developments taking place in our constitution.
      2.15 pm
      Ms Glenda Jackson: I oppose new clauses 3 and 6, and amendments Nos. 15, 1, 16 and 10. I was not aware that the work of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) in Committee had strengthened the Bill, or that any of his amendments were accepted. I am sure that all rural communities will be interested to note that he opposes the fact that the Chancellor has found £50 million a year over the next three years for the restructuring of public transport in such areas, given that the Administration whom the hon. Gentleman served privatised bus services and reduced many rural areas to a public transport system that is non-existent or totally inadequate.
      New clause 3 is unnecessary. The Bill places on the Secretary of State under clause 2(1) or (2) a duty to have regard to the impact of any changes in vehicle excise duty
      864
      or fuel duty on road traffic. Those, however, are only two of the triggers available to the Secretary of State. He will need to consider a wide range of factors; there is no reason to single out this particular fiscal trigger; nor would it be sensible to list all the potential triggers available to a Secretary of State in setting and achieving targets.
      New clause 6 is unnecessary. Road traffic statistics are currently produced at regular intervals, so there is no need for specific legislation.
      The Bill's subject matter is a devolved matter in Northern Ireland. The Bill, as amended in Standing Committee, provides for analogous legislation to be introduced in Northern Ireland.
      Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 refer to London. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced earlier this week that, subject to the referendum to be held on 7 May, there will be a directly elected mayor for London from 2000. The mayor will be responsible for transport in the capital. The White Paper "A Mayor and Assembly for London" makes it clear that the mayor's integrated transport strategy will be set in the context of a national policy. It therefore makes no sense to set separate figures for London or to require the consent of the mayor to measures that we believe should be applied nationally.
      I cannot support either amendment No. 1 or amendment No. 10. The existence of the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales is contingent on the devolution legislation going through, which cannot, for the purposes of the Bill, be assumed. If the legislation were passed in advance of the Bill, the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales would automatically be involved in the way suggested by the amendments, as the subject matter of Bill would be a devolved matter in both countries. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Christchurch not to press the new clause.
      Mr. Chope: I am disappointed in not just the content, but the manner of delivery, of the Minister's reply: she is being totally graceless about the matter. She knows that in Committee a number of the points that I raised were accepted by the Bill's promoter, if not by her, and that one of the amendments in the first group arose directly as a result of points that I first raised in Committee.
      I wish to move quickly to the final group of amendments, so I shall not respond in more detail to what the Minister said. I can say that I do not agree with almost anything that she has uttered in the Chamber this afternoon.
      I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New clause 5

      REPORTS UNDER ROAD TRAFFIC REDUCTION ACT 1997
      '() The Secretary of State shall not require any local authority to produce a report pursuant to the Road Traffic Reduction Act 1997 until at least six months after the publication by the Secretary of State of the first report under section 2— [Mr. Chope]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Chope: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 11, in clause 4, page 2, line 12, after 'Act', insert
      'and which is made within six months of the coming into effect of this Act'.
      Mr. Chope: The new clause links the Bill with the Road Traffic Reduction Act 1997. The thinking behind it is to put pressure on the Minister to produce her report, under clause 2, more quickly than she has suggested hitherto. She has suggested that she will produce the first report around the year 2000. The Government said that they wanted national targets, but they are now saying that they will wait for information from local authorities before deciding to set any targets—if so, what targets? The Government have it round the wrong way. It is reasonable to expect the Government to set the national framework and then for the local authorities to follow on from that. I understood that that was the point that the Minister was seeking to make in answer to points raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) in the previous debate.
      Amendment No. 11 arises from a commitment made by the Minister in Committee to extend the Bill by Order in Council to Northern Ireland within three to four months of its enactment. It would require that to be done by affirmative resolution if it were delayed beyond six months from enactment. That measure tries to put pressure on the Government.
      Ms Glenda Jackson: I am delighted that I disappointed the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). I take no particular pride in that because, of course, it is so easy for me so to do. To be dubbed graceless by Conservative Members I regard as no small compliment.
      I oppose new clause 5 and amendment No. 11. It would not be sensible to delay the production of local authority reports. There seemed to be a somewhat ironic paradox in the argument of the hon. Member for Christchurch. He was critical of the time scale for publishing a national target, yet wished to delay local authority work. In drawing up their report, the Government will want to look closely at the targets set by local authorities and their likely effect on traffic levels. The reports will play a valuable part in devising and stating the national target. Therefore, any delay in their production would not be helpful.
      866
      I turn to amendment No. 11, which I oppose on legal advice. I understand that a time limit cannot be prescribed in the Bill, as it would be incompatible with the constitutional arrangements applying to Northern Ireland as regards the treatment of devolved matters. It is however usual for an Order in Council to be made within three to four months of enactment of a Bill in Westminster. I assure the House that the Government have no intention of delaying the process. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Christchurch to withdraw the motion.
      Mr. Chope: There have been times during the Minister's remarks when I have wondered whether it is her purpose to try to ensure that the Bill is talked out by so provoking me. I am not going to fall for that old trick. I shall reserve my venom for the Minister for another occasion. I hope that she becomes the mayoral candidate for London so that we can campaign against her in Hampstead high street and tell people there exactly what she was saying a year ago and is now completely disregarding in her attitude to the Bill. The Bill was an embarrassment for her in Committee. If I were charitable, I would say that that might be the reason for the tone of some of her remarks.
      I shall ask leave to withdraw the motion, to enable completion of Report today. I hope that, as a result, people who have suggested at various stages in the proceedings that it was my objective to frustrate and destroy the Bill will withdraw those allegations. As we know, actions speak louder than words. That is why we are so critical of the Minister's behaviour—having behaved in one way on Hampstead high street and not being able in Committee to explain her actions that day. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 2

      ROAD TRAFFIC REDUCTION TARGETS
      Amendment made: No. 13, in page 1, line 27, at end insert—
      '(3A) In considering how to comply with the requirements of subsections (1) and (2), the Secretary of State shall have regard to—

      (a) the mobility needs of persons with disabilities, and

      (b) the need for an adequate provision of taxi services in rural and non-rural areas.'. — [Ms Glenda Jackson.]

      Order for Third Reading read.
      To be read the Third time on Friday 24 April.

  Local Authority Tenders Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Local Authority Tenders Bill
    Clause 1

      LOCAL AND OTHER PUBLIC AUTHORITY CONTRACTS: RESTRICTION OF DUTY TO EXCLUDE NON-COMMERCIAL CONSIDERATIONS
      2.24 pm
      Mr. Eric Forth: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, leave out lines 8 to 12.
      I hope that we can deal with this matter very quickly. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King), the Bill's promoter, has gone to extraordinary lengths to deal with the questions raised by my amendments. I do not want to delay the House; I simply want to raise a matter that bothers me considerably.
      The Bill states:
      "If … an order under subsection (1) above would be treated for the purposes of the standing orders of either House of Parliament as a hybrid instrument, it shall proceed in that House as if it were not such an instrument."
      Because of the diligence of the promoter of the Bill, it just so happens that the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), wrote to try to reassure me that that would not necessarily happen. For the sake of completeness, I shall read out an extract from his letter so that the details are clear to all. I hope that that is an acceptable way of proceeding.
      The letter says:
      "Your first amendment would remove the provision in the Bill making it unnecessary for an order to follow the hybrid instrument procedure in the House of Lords. In fact, it is unlikely that the Secretary of State will make an order under the proposed power which would be subject to the hybrid instruments procedure. We envisage that any order would affect public authorities, their functions and contracts across the board. However, in the unlikely event that an order were made in respect of an individual local authority, I believe the provision in the Bill is necessary in order to avoid delay in its implementation. Moreover, the requirement in the Bill to obtain the approval of both Houses to a draft order is in itself a sufficient safeguard against any abuse of the power to make an order."
      The Minister seemed to be saying that it was unlikely that the measure would need to be used. That is a matter of judgment. He then said that he still wanted the power to be available. The promoter explained to me that she thought that it would be necessary to allow the running of pilot schemes to demonstrate what the Bill is intended to do.
      In the context, that makes some sense, but whether we should accept the last sentence in that passage from the letter —
      "the requirement in the Bill to obtain the approval of both Houses to a draft order is in itself a sufficient safeguard against any abuse of the power to make an order" —
      as the reassurance offered is a matter of judgment.
      Mr. David Maclean: I must confess that I had paid no attention to the point until I saw my right hon. Friend's amendments on the amendment paper, which forced me to read the Bill again.
      868
      The provision seems extraordinary to me. In the extensive research that I am aware he conducts on such matters, has my right hon. Friend come across any other examples of clauses in Bills with words to the effect of "Notwithstanding the fact that the Bill", or order, "may be hybrid, it is given carte blanche to be treated as if it were not hybrid", thereby obviating the need to use the procedures of the House?
      Mr. Forth: I am not aware of any precedent.
      Ms Oona King: The provisions that the right hon. Gentleman seeks to amend are fairly normal in such cases. Recent examples include section 79(4) of the Airports Act 1986, section 34(4) of the Police Act 1996 and section 87(9) of the Environment Act 1995. I shall not continue, but there are several other examples.
      Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the promoter of the Bill, who obviously does her homework, too—extraordinarily thoroughly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) can see.
      I was about to conclude my remarks on the subject by saying that it is for right hon. and hon. Members to judge whether they should accept the safeguard that the Minister offers us—the need for the approval of both Houses for a draft order. From the Opposition Benches now, looking at the size of the Government's majority and the way in which they use it, at the attitude of Ministers and at the Government's proposals for the upper House, all I can say is that I leave it for others to judge whether the safeguard offered is sufficient.
      Mr. Maclean: When a Bill or order is regarded as hybrid, is there not a special procedure whereby representatives of the private interests that may be affected can appear before a special Select Committee to put their case, as happens with private Bills? If the Bill goes ahead with the wording in the clause unchanged, that would not happen in some cases. We shall have to look at the precedents in the Acts that the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) mentioned. I cannot recall their being brought to my attention when they went through the House.
      Mr. Forth: I suspect that my right hon. Friend is right. I have received assurances and, thanks to the promoter of the Bill, I met someone from the private sector who assured me that he and the rest of the private sector were fully satisfied that the Bill would help them in tendering and contracting for local government. He did not seem unduly bothered about the provision.
      The letter so kindly transmitted to me by the Minister at least attempts to answer the question about hybridity, and I thought that the House should be aware of what it said.
      The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) pointed out the number of times that orders have been made. The right hon. Gentleman is obviously concerned that there should be no abuse of power. The Bill requires the approval of both Houses before a

      869
      draft order can be made, so that is a sufficient safeguard against any abuse of power. I therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman not to press the amendment.
      Mr. Forth: In view of the letter from the Under-Secretary and what the Minister has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 2

      SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT
      Mr. Forth: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 19, leave out 'two' and insert 'six'.
      I tabled the amendment because I was uneasy about the two-month implementation period in the Bill—
      It being half-past Two o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.
      Bill to be further considered on Friday 24 April.

  Remaining Private Members' Bills

    PRIVATE HIRE VEHICLES (LONDON) BILL
    Order read for consideration in Committee.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Committee deferred till Friday 24 April.

    PUBLIC RECORDS (AMENDMENT) BILL
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [30 January], That the Bill be now read a Second time.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Debate to be resumed on Friday 24 April.

    SCHOOL CHILDREN'S CLOTHING AND FOOTWEAR (VALUE ADDED TAX) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 3 July.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY CHANGES (REFERENDUM) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 24 April.

    DOOR SUPERVISORS (REGISTRATION) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 3 July.

    FARMING OF ANIMALS FOR FUR (PROHIBITION) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 24 April.

    COMPANIES (MILLENNIUM COMPUTER COMPLIANCE) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 24 April.

    REFORM OF QUARANTINE REGULATIONS BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 24 April.

    VOLUNTARY PERSONAL SECURITY CARDS BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 24 April.

    REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCIES BILL (PROGRAMME)
    Ordered,
    That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Regional Development Agencies Bill:
    1. The proceedings on consideration shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at half-past Ten o'clock on Wednesday 1st April and proceedings on Third Reading shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at midnight on that day; and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill for two hours after Ten o'clock.
    2. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill.
    3. For the purpose of concluding any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by or under this Order—

    (1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the following Questions (but no others—

    (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

    (b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including in the case of a new Clause or Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);

    (c) the Question that any remaining new Clauses or new Schedules standing in the name of a member of the Government be added to the Bill;

    (d) the Question that all remaining amendments standing in the name of a member of the Government be made; and

    (e) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

    (2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to sittings of the House and may be decided, though opposed, at any hour. — [Mr. Dowd.]

  Middle East
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Dowd.]
  2.32 pm
  Mr. George Galloway: First, I extend my warm congratulations to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on his important initiative, during his recent tour of middle eastern capitals, which attempted to restart the ailing middle east peace process. I noticed in this morning's press that my right hon. Friend is to be denied the pleasure of yet another dinner as a result of his principled and courageous efforts to achieve peace with honour, peace with justice, and peace for land in the middle east.
  The well-publicised rudeness of Netanyahu, and that of his settler supporters and his police, tried but failed to divert world attention from the importance of illegally occupied Jerusalem. The Foreign Secretary was right to visit the illegal settlement in occupied Jerusalem. He was also right to say publicly that Jerusalem was a Palestinian capital as well. It is occupied in exactly the way that Kuwait was occupied by Iraq—by armed force. It is held in defiance of repeated decisions by the United Nations Security Council.
  Similar rudeness by Netanyahu's cheerleaders here in Britain will equally fail, and will merely draw further attention to their hero's arrogant refusal to implement international law and solemn and binding treaties signed by his predecessors.
  I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in anticipation of his visit to the Palestine National Authority. There are great expectations of him and his visit in the territory. Like the Foreign Secretary's efforts, the prospect of the visit has done much to lift the air of despair and depression in the Arab world and has buttressed the standing of this country in an area that is of great interest to us.
  We maintain a huge balance of trade surplus with the Arab world. Our annual trade with Saudi Arabia alone is worth £3.8 billion—more than the total in trade with the whole of Latin America. Our surplus with the United Arab Emirates alone is £1 billion per year. We must never forget that, in pursuing a more balanced policy in the middle east, we are not only doing what is right, but serving our national interest, which is, after all, a legitimate part of any Government's foreign policy.
  The middle east is historically important to us—nobody knows the area better than we do. We were guiding statecraft in Arabia when the cowboys were still wiping out the indigenous population of America and when the idea of obliterating the name Palestine from the maps of the world would have seemed incredible. The other day, Netanyahu had the nerve to say that the Europeans had no place in the middle east peace process because they did not understand the area. The House will recall that Sykes and Picot were not Americans.
  The truth is that the reason why Netanyahu does not want us in the peace process is not that we do not understand the area, but that we understand it only too well. We understand the canyon of despair in the middle east that was created by the failure of Netanyahu to implement the Oslo agreements and by the failure of the United Nations and the world to force him to do so.

  873
  That is what the Government have been told by our friends in the area—people who are our good customers and loyal allies, and who have taken considerable risks for peace.
  I am talking about friends such as Qatar's admirable Foreign Minister Sheikh Hammed, who has expressed his fears about the rise of fanaticism in the area in the wake of that failure. The Crown Prince of Jordan last night spelt out on television the high price that our friends the Jordanians are paying and may yet pay for the paralysis in the peace process and the continuing crisis in the Gulf. The Egyptian president, Hosni Mubarak, warned us of the shock waves of extremism that lurk in the Arab world, which will be unleashed unless something is done.
  I had the opportunity of following the progress of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary while I was in three Arab countries—Syria, Jordan and Iraq—to which I travelled at the expense of, and in my capacity as, secretary of the Emergency Committee on Iraq. I can therefore tell the House that the British Government's stance—advocated in the name of the European Union, the largest collection of democracies in the world—was warmly received in both the chanceries and streets of the Arab world.
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary should not be deterred by the predictable chorus of pro-Netanyahu propaganda that is recycled—to their discredit—by some Opposition Members and some newspapers, who irresponsibly adopt the Israeli line on these events not because they support Netanyahu, but because they are out to damage the Foreign Secretary and the Government.
  As I said, I recently returned from that other flashpoint in the area—Iraq. Again, I thank my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary for the generosity of spirit with which he received my entreaties on behalf of the suffering children of that country. My right hon. Friend has always said that Britain has no quarrel with the ordinary people of Iraq, and I have always said that we should go out of our way to prove that—this, he has done.
  There are encouraging signs of peace breaking out in Iraq. Mr. Richard Butler, the far from easily pleased head of the United Nations Special Commission spoke earlier this week of
  "a remarkable new atmosphere of co-operation"
  emerging between the United Nations inspectorate, its diplomatic escorts and the Iraqi Government. The first presidential site was successfully visited by a huge UNSCOM team yesterday.
  When I met Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz last week, I stressed to him the importance of the swift and comprehensive implementation of the agreement brokered with great skill by the United Nations Secretary-General. I stressed the importance of avoiding at all costs any mistakes or misunderstandings in the implementation of those accords. The Deputy Prime Minister was clear that Iraq would implement the Secretary-General's agreement, both in spirit and to the letter.
  Judging by what Mr. Butler has said, progress has started well. At this rate, the sites about which so much has been said will all have been inspected soon. Of course, there are rather fewer of them than we were told at the
  874
  height of the recent crisis—eight rather than 48—and they are rather smaller than we were told or, indeed, shown on specially prepared maps here in the Chamber. Alas, the quality of our intelligence from Iraq has been poor, perhaps deliberately so.
  In any case, let us be positive. That means that the job will be completed all the sooner. We must hope so, because time is running out for the long-suffering people of Iraq, a nation of 22 millions, with which we have had a long and close association and with which, not so long ago, we conducted huge volumes of business—I am talking about respectable business and not the obscenities of the arms trade—whose people we educated in our universities in huge numbers and whose tourists used to come here in greater numbers than from any other Arab country.
  Time is running out because even a people with the fortitude of the Iraqis cannot suffer the depredations of sanctions indefinitely. Pre-famine conditions exist in Iraq, as the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organisation has stated. UNICEF, the United Nation's Childrens Fund, says that 31 per cent. of Iraqi children under five are suffering from chronic malnutrition—almost one in three. On average, every child in Iraq suffers around 15 bouts of diarrhoea a year with a one in 50 chance of dying from what is an easily cured condition.
  The Government may say that food and medicine are not covered by sanctions, but that is misleading to the point of being untrue. First, the current levels of the oil-for-food deal, which are double what they were, allow Iraq to sell just £2 billion worth of oil every six months, with strict UN supervision of how the money is spent. Of that sum, more than one third is deducted immediately for reparations payments to Kuwait and to cover the cost of the vast UN apparatus in Kuwait and Iraq. That leaves less than £3 billion per year for all food, medicines and other supplies for a country with a population nearly half the size of Britain's—30 cents per person per day.
  To obtain a comparison, let us look at our expenditure on our health service alone of £44 billion per year. We see that the figure falls grotesquely short of Iraq's needs before even taking into account the aggregate effect of seven and a half long years of sanctions. It is true that the Government are proposing a further doubling of the amount, but it is equally true that Iraq cannot pump the amount of oil needed to realise that new sum without substantial rehabilitation of its capacity. Even if the figure is doubled to 60 cents per day, it will be a drop in the ocean.
  Iraq is a sea of water-borne diseases. The sewerage systems have collapsed and the water purification systems too. Sometimes, solid waste comes through the taps. Many parts of Iraq have had no electricity since the war and all parts still suffer power black-outs, even hospitals, sometimes during operations. Cholera, typhoid and enteric diseases are on the march in that once-modern land. In 1990, there were 485 cases of Kwashiorkor, the starvation affliction introduced to the word's public in Biafra 30 years ago. Last year in Iraq, there were 28,475 cases. I beg my hon. Friend not to treat those figures as though they were controversial. They are not mine—I have deliberately chosen figures produced by the United Nations agencies.
  I walked through that misery in Iraq last week, and hard-bitten journalists from the American, French, German and British media wept with me at what we found

  875
  in two children's hospitals, which were filthy because cleaning materials are banned under sanctions. Cleaners do not turn up to work because their salaries are only $2 a month, and doctors sweep floors as well as treating patients and comforting their families for only $3 a month. There are no sheets on beds, because they are banned under sanctions, and other bedclothes are washed in diesel, because detergents are banned under sanctions.
  Hospital equipment has virtually all broken down, and spare parts are banned under sanctions. There is almost no intravenous fluid: it, too, is banned under sanctions, as are insulin; vitamins; until recently, syringes; doctors' pencils; and even plastic bags that hold blood or collect waste matter from open wounds. Anaesthetic is virtually unobtainable, as are radiotherapy treatment and X-rays, which are banned under sanctions.
  Drugs are either unaffordable or undependable, and arrive in the wrong combinations at the wrong times. Much worse, a cancer epidemic afflicting many children who were not born at the time of the conflict between this country and Iraq appears to have broken out. In 1989, there were 2,185 cases of leukaemia, and 385 deaths. In 1996, there were 9,785 new cases of cancer, and 3,320 deaths. The figures for 1997 suggest that the trend is accelerating.
  The incomparable Robert Fisk, writing in The Independent, and other noble British journalists who are investigating this disaster, point to the enormous bombardment of southern Iraq in 1991 with 927,000 uranium-tipped aircraft bullets and 30,000 armour-piercing shells which were tipped with depleted uranium for greater penetrative power. Those weapons were tested in Scotland, and 20 tonnes of them still lie festering in the Solway firth, but 300 tonnes of uranium dust has been left in the sands of the Gulf—in the water and in the food chain, and in the chests and blood of the children of Iraq.
  Our own service men were ignored by the previous Government when they complained of Gulf war syndrome. Fisk argues that the syndrome and the suffering of the Iraqis, who were on the receiving end of the ordnance, may be linked. Like the children of parents poisoned by agent orange, the American chemical weapon used in attacks on the peoples of Vietnam, Iraqi children are victims of a conflict that they did not choose and could not affect.
  Having visited the cancers on Iraq's children, we would be putting them in double jeopardy if we maintained a blockade that effectively starved Iraq's children of the remedies. I cannot prove that those weapons cause the cancers, but there is a case to answer, and the question mark hanging over it is so large that it demands a response.
  We have an armada of soldiers and sailors armed with cruise missiles standing to in the Arabian gulf. Hon. Members would do much to inform the people of Iraq of the values of western civilisation if we sent an army of cancer experts armed with radiotherapy equipment, diagnostic tools and suitcases of chemotherapy drugs to help the beleaguered Iraqi health service to combat this malignancy.
  This policy must end sooner or later—we are not fighting the hundred years war—and it no longer commands the support in the Arab world, among our European partners or in the Security Council that it did. It would be better to bring the policy to an end in a
  876
  calculated and negotiated way. If that is not done, it will begin to collapse in ways which we cannot accurately foretell and which may lead to even more terrifying instability in the region, to the detriment of people with whom we have no quarrel, of friendly Governments in the neighbouring middle eastern countries and, ultimately, of our own national interests.
  2.48 pm
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett): May I first thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) for his remarks and his congratulations to our right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary? I agree with my hon. Friend that those congratulations were well earned.
  I shall first address the need for urgent progress in the middle east peace process. My hon. Friend is right to say that a deep sense of frustration and despair is felt in all the Arab countries, which has been built up by the lack of progress in the peace process. We are keen to see progress because we believe that it is in the interests of everyone, including Israel, the Palestinians and the rest of the region.
  One of the reasons why my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made the speech that he did a few weeks ago, which achieved such widespread support and acclamation, was that he wanted to ensure a distinct and clear European Union voice in the process. He also wished to set out our ambitions and aspirations for the middle east peace process.
  My hon. Friend will have watched recent developments. We have set out the important steps that we believe need to be taken by the parties. We have always stressed that the parties are under an obligation to fulfil their commitments under previous agreements. It does not make any difference in international law if those agreements are signed by a previous Government: the simple fact is that they are signed on behalf of states, not by individual Governments, and the commitments do not fall into abeyance once the Government changes. It is crucial that all the parties carry out the commitments that they have undertaken in previous agreements.
  As my hon. Friend said, we have been even-handed. We have reminded the Palestinians of their obligations. We have talked about the need for the Palestinians to deliver on security and, as part of our presidency of the European Union, we have made clear our commitment to the Palestinians to help with that issue.
  I am pleased to tell the House that there is now a strong view in the United States and among our European Union colleagues that the Palestinians are making every possible effort to deliver on their security obligations. We wish them well, because security is a crucial part of the process of developing and maintaining confidence.
  We have also said that no other action should be taken by either party that diverts attention from or undermines the existing process. For that reason, as my hon. Friend knows, we have been strong in our criticism of settlements, because they contradict international law and are in contravention of the spirit of the peace process. The settlements make it difficult, if not impossible, to restore the confidence that is crucial to making progress. That is why my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made a strong statement about settlements on his recent visit to the middle east. We will continue to make such statements, because they are important. Israel should not

  877
  be able to pre-empt the final status negotiations by continued settlement development. That position is not unique to the United Kingdom: it is held by the European Union and has been affirmed on many occasions by the United States.
  The Foreign Secretary, in his speech recently, also said that there was a need for other action that would enable the peace process to move forward. He itemised four areas that are especially important. First, progress needs to be made on further redeployments. I hope that it is clearly understood that the term is "redeployments" in the plural. Commitments exist that make it clear that the next redeployment will not be the last in the process before final status negotiations. We have argued that there must be meaningful and significant movement on further redeployments. The figures have been discussed and are out in the open in rumour form, but it is important that more progress is made.
  The other areas in which progress can be made are economic measures to win confidence, the development of the industrial estate in Gaza and the opening of the airport there, and the provision of the southern safe passage route. All those measures will restore confidence. It is a remarkable testimony to the patience of the Palestinian people that, since the Oslo peace accords, their living standards have fallen, on average, by nearly 40 per cent. That must make it difficult for the average Palestinian to have any confidence in the peace process, but they still appear to be strongly committed to it. It is important that those interim economic measures are taken to build confidence and, above all, to maintain and improve living standards.
  My hon. Friend was in Palestine at the same time as I was, just over two years ago, for the Palestine National Authority elections. He knows that that was a day of great hope, not only for the Palestinians but for those of us who had the opportunity of talking to ordinary Israelis. They, too, hoped that two neighbouring democracies were being born in the middle east that could work together and build confidence, one in the other. We must ensure that hope is put back into the peace process so that the ordinary people of the region can see a future. We must replace frustration with hope.
  My hon. Friend has a clear commitment from the Government, as part of our European Union presidency and beyond, that we will give a high priority in our diplomatic efforts to ensuring progress in the middle east peace process.
  The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary are in regular close consultation with our European Union partners and with the United States to discuss ways in which we can advance the process. There is good collaboration between Europe and the United States. We hope that before too long—the quicker, the better—the United States will table its own proposals. They will be watershed proposals that open the prospect of making the progress that we all seek. Europe will have played a significant part in delivering them to the table and creating confidence in the process.
  I welcome my hon. Friend's opening comments on those issues. He has from me the assurance that we will continue to be active in the middle east peace process.
  878
  My hon. Friend talked about several issues relating to Iraq. I congratulate him on the points that he made to the Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister, Tariq Aziz. It is crucial that the agreement made by Kofi Annan is adhered to; there must be compliance. We are pleased that, so far, there has been co-operation and that the inspections are going ahead. We have always argued that there had to be unrestricted access. So far, we have to report that progress has been reassuring, and we wish that to continue.
  When my hon. Friend was speaking, I was reminded of an important point. If Iraq can now co-operate so fully with the inspection regime, why did it not co-operate earlier? That shows that responsibility for the continuation of sanctions rests with the Iraqi regime and no one else. We have always said that compliance with the United Nations Security Council resolutions would lead to the lifting of sanctions. I am sure that my hon. Friend recognises that non-compliance over the years—the refusal to go along with the inspection team—has created the problems that may now exist in the form that he described. The fact is that such co-operation could have been given by the Iraqi regime a long time ago, and many of the issues could have been resolved. If that had been the case, Iraq would have been free of its weapons of mass destruction.
  When my hon. Friend visited other capitals in the region, he would have been told time and again that those countries share our objective of ensuring that Iraq is clear of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. They want Iraq to be clear of its weapons of mass destruction.
  My hon. Friend was very kind in his comments on the Government's concern for the ordinary people of Iraq. He is right that we have no argument with the ordinary people of Iraq. The Government have been proud to take action in two important areas. First, we led in the Security Council to ensure that there was a new humanitarian Security Council resolution. We were responsible for taking the initiative to double the amount of oil that could be sold by Iraq to meet a range of requirements. We are proud to have taken that position, and it is further evidence that the United Kingdom has no argument with the ordinary people of Iraq. We are trying to deliver to the ordinary people of Iraq.
  We have taken a further initiative in calling for a conference—to take place next month, we hope—to look at the humanitarian issues and the ways of providing further assistance to the ordinary people of Iraq. We have got together with our European Union partners, and the conference will involve other countries. We hope that we can be imaginative in dealing with some of the issues of immediate importance to the people of Iraq.
  My hon. Friend wrote to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary about the case of Marian Hamza, although he did not mention that case today. My right hon. Friend has replied, and will do all he can to ensure that appropriate humanitarian assistance is made available. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will keep in touch with us on those issues.
  My hon. Friend referred to the use of depleted uranium and his fears in that respect. Given the shortness of time available and the importance of the issue, I promise to write to him to do justice to his remarks. It would be wrong at this stage to try to push those aside with a sleight of parliamentary hand. My hon. Friend deserves a fuller

  879
  reply, and it may be useful to the House if, with his agreement, I make my reply available through the House of Commons Library.
  I conclude by thanking my hon. Friend for raising the issues. The middle east is important to the UK. As he rightly said, we have experience and expertise in the region. We are determined to be fair and active players, and we understand the importance of the issues, and the concerns and priorities of all people. If we can deliver
  880
  political solutions to what have been intractable problems, it will be a real contribution by this Government and the United Kingdom. We will work towards those with our best endeavours. As always, we cannot promise satisfaction—
  The motion having been made after half-past Two o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at two minutes past Three o'clock.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proportion of Civil Service staff of grade 5 and above within her Department(a) have spent their entire civil service career within her Department, (b)have had secondments to (i) the private sector and (ii) other departments and (c)have come from other departments. [26037]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 28 January 1998]The information for the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Departments is as follows:

  percentage

  Northern Ireland civil service staff

  Home civil service staff

  (a)

  98

  6

  (b)(i)

  1

  0

  (b)(ii)

  0.5

  44

  (c)

  0.5

  50

  1 Figures for Northern Ireland civil service staff cover the last five years and could be provided for earlier years only at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Child Care
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what provision her Department makes for child care facilities for staff; what subsidy is provided for(a) nursery places and (b) holiday play schemes; if she will list the organisations used by her Department for child care; and if child care vouchers are made available to staff. [30016]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 19 February 1998]In the Northern Ireland Civil Service, current policy is that Departments can contribute to staff child care costs where this is justified on value for money grounds. The following subsidies are provided:

  (a)The Department of the Environment provides a subsidy of 35% of the weekly fees, up to a maximum of £30 towards the cost of placing a child in a registered nursery of the employee's choice. The Child Support Agency also provide a subsidy of £30 per week for placement in a registered nursery. The Department of Education has been running an emergency child care subsidy scheme for a trial period of one year form May 1997. This provides for the actual cost of emergency child care by a registered provider for a maximum of 2 days on any one occasion, limited to 4 occasions in a year.
  286
  (b)The Department of Finance and Personnel provides a subsidy of 50% of accommodation costs and 40% of staff costs for 8 holiday play schemes.

  In the Northern Ireland office a child care voucher scheme for London-based staff provides a contribution of £100 per month for pre-school child care costs. A similar scheme is being introduced for Belfast-based staff.

  As part of the proposals for the National Child Care Strategy my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has asked the Inter-Departmental Group on Early Years to consider the child care provision made by Government Departments in Northern Ireland for their staff.

  NHS Administrative Practices
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the total saving accrued since 1 May as a result of changes to administrative practices in the health service in(a) primary care, (b) secondary care and (c)the HSS Executive. [35696]

  Mr. Worthington
  The information requested is not available.

  In accordance with the Government's commitment to reduce bureaucracy and abolish the internal market, guidance was issued by the HSS Executive to all HSS bodies, setting out immediate changes to be made to internal market arrangements to streamline cashflows and redirect resources to patient care. Although there are a number of examples of good practice which have been implemented throughout the HPSS, in compliance with this guidance, it is not possible at this time to quantify the level of savings resulting specifically from these changes.

  However, savings of £2 million per annum resulting from a reduction in management costs from 1997–98 will amount to £10 million over the lifetime of this parliament and officials are currently considering further reductions in management cost.

  The forthcoming consultation document on the future organisation of the HPSS, which is due to issue shortly, sets out proposals for the abolition of the internal market which will redirect additional resources, saved by abolishing wasteful management structures, towards patient care.

  Health and Personal Social Services
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what has been the(a) revenue and (b) capital expenditure in each of the last five years in (i) cash and (ii) real terms on social services in Northern Ireland; [35733]

  (2) what has been the (a) revenue and (b) capital expenditure in each of the last five years in (i) cash and (ii) real terms on health services in Northern Ireland. [35732]

  Mr. Worthington
  As health and personal social services (HPSS) are provided on an integrated basis in Northern Ireland, it is not possible to break HPSS expenditure figures down between spend on health and
  287
  personal social services. Accordingly, in terms of total HPSS expenditure (excluding EC Peace Moneys) the information requested is as follows:

  £

  Year

  Cash

  Real Terms Cash

  1992–93

  Revenue

  1,206,197

  1,332,844

  Capital

  49,186

  54,350

  1993–94

  Revenue

  1,286,162

  1,381,069

  Capital

  51,775

  55,596

  1994–95

  Revenue

  1,377,703

  1,457,409

  Capital

  44,834

  47,428

  1995–96

  Revenue

  1,479,179

  1,522,510

  Capital

  41,775

  42,999

  1996–97

  Revenue

  1,510,538

  1,510,538

  Capital

  40,647

  40,647

  Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what targets have been set for the Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency during 1998–99. [37069]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  For 1998–99, the following performance targets have been set:

  Target

  Vehicle test appointments average waiting time

  21 days

  Driving test appointments average waiting time

  31 days

  Productivity (vehicle testing)

  18.5 units per man per day

  Productivity (driver testing)

  7.98 units per man per day

  Faulty inspections

  Not to exceed 0.01% of tests conducted

  Level of complaints about booking arrangements

  Less than 0.15% of applications received

  Level of complaints about the conduct of tests

  Less than 0.15% of applications received

  Level of customer satisfaction with booking arrangements

  At least 85% plus or minus 2% within the range of sampling error

  Level of customer satisfaction with test procedures

  At least 92% plus or minus 2% within the range of sampling error

  Level of compliance with Theory Test Service Standards

  92%

  Detainees
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when she intends to publish Sir Louis Blom-Cooper's Fifth Annual report as Independent Commissioner for the Holding Centres. [37070]
  288
  Marjorie Mowlam
  I have today arranged for copies of Sir. Louis Blom-Cooper's Annual Report for 1997 to be placed in the Library.

  I am grateful to the Commissioner and his Deputy, Dr. Bill Norris, for their Report. I note that for the fifth successive year they have found no cause for concern about the care and treatment of detainees held in the custody of uniformed officers of the RUC.

  I shall study carefully the recommendations which Sir Louis Blom-Cooper has made.

  Social Fund
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the Northern Ireland Social Fund discretionary budget will be for 1998–99. [37071]

  Mr. Worthington
  I am pleased to announce that the Social Fund gross discretionary budget for 1998/99 will be £40.55 million. £9.76 million will be allocated to grants; £30.69 million to loans and £0.1 million will be held as a contingency reserve. The new allocations represent an increase of £0.21 million over the gross budget set at April 1997.

  Details of the individual District budget allocations, together with a note explaining the basis on which they have been made, have been placed in the Library today.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Regional Development Agencies Bill
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what environmental assessment his Department has made of the Regional Development Agencies Bill; and if he will place a copy in the Library. [35644]

  Mr. Caborn
  Chapter 8 of the White Paper "Building Partnerships for Prosperity" sets out the approach we intend regional development agencies to take to environment and sustainable development issues. The Regional Development Agencies Bill gives effect to this by providing the appropriate legislative framework.

  English Partnerships
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the English Partnerships funding allocations, broken down by Government office region, have been each year since their inception. [35911]

  Mr. Caborn
  English Partnerships became fully operational from April 1994. Its total expenditure, in £ million, on its development programme, excluding expenditure on the Greenwich Peninsula, over the 3 years since its inception has been as follows:

  £ million

  Year

  Expenditure

  1994–95

  225.4

  1995–96

  236.7

  1996–97

  235

  289
  English Partnerships' regional offices are not currently coterminous with those of the Government Offices for the Regions. Spend is therefore not recorded by Government Office Region.

  English Partnerships expenditure by region, excluding Greenwich, is however recorded as follows:

  £ million

  Region

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  North-East

  47.7

  34.3

  31.8

  North-West

  52.9

  52.0

  50.4

  Yorks & Humber

  43.8

  55.0

  40.5

  Midlands

  63.4

  58.0

  67.8

  South-East

  10.3

  25.6

  36.0

  South-West

  7.3

  11.8

  8.5

  Total

  225.4

  236.7

  235.0

  Rural Development Commission
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the Rural Development Commission funding allocations have been for each year since 1988, broken down by Government office region. [35912]

  Angela Eagle
  Approved grant in aid provision for the Rural Development Commission (RDC) for the years 1988–89 to 1997–98 is set out in the table. The regional allocations made by the RDC cannot be broken down by Government Office region because the RDC's regional structure does not reflect the Government Office regional structure.

  £000

  Year

  Approved grant in aid provision

  1988–89

  30,589

  1989–90

  31,237

  1990–91

  27,043

  1991–92

  16,267

  1992–93

  11,969

  1993–94

  21,342

  1994–95

  31,694

  1995–96

  38,980

  1996–97

  39,677

  1997–98

  40,064

  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the future of the Rural Development Commission. [37148]

  Mr. Prescott
  The Rural Development Commission and the Countryside Commission are to be merged to form a new body that will play a central role in the Government's policy of developing a sustainable, living, countryside, while recognising the interdependence of urban and rural areas. The new body will pursue an integrated approach to conserving and enhancing the countryside as an essential resource for the benefit of this and future generations and meeting the distinctive needs of rural areas, those who live in, work in or visit them. The Chairman and Board members will be chosen for the contribution they can make to this.
  290
  The new organisation represents an initial outcome from the joint DETR/MAFF Comprehensive Spending Review of countryside and rural policy, underway since last summer. Further announcements covering the whole range of issues considered in the review will be made in due course. I am confident that this move towards integration will be welcomed by people and organisations with an interest in rural policy.

  The new body will inherit some of its responsibilities from its predecessors, but will also have a fresh mandate. It will:
  give advice to Government, local authorities, the new Regional Development Agencies, and others on all matters relating to conservation and the sustainable development of the countryside for the benefit of all who live or work in it, visit or value it;
  give advice to Government on how to secure a rural dimension to its wider policies; take countrywide initiatives on, and promote the enhancement of, the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside and to encourage people's access to and enjoyment of it;
  take countrywide initiatives on, and promote a living and sustainable countryside to meet the economic and social needs of people living and working there.

  The body's national advisory function will continue to be independent, and based on expertise and experience, informed and refined by research, top quality experimentation, local advisory work, programme delivery and pilot schemes. The countrywide initiatives and promotion work will be centred on building local and regional partnerships and delivering real benefits to the countryside and local rural communities, as well as providing for the needs of visitors. The work of the new body will be guided by the principles of sustainable development and the importance of an integrated approach to rural policy, against a background of moves towards an integrated rural policy across the EU.

  Both Commissions support the concept of a new, merged organisation and are engaged in some initial analysis of how the particular strengths of each body could be retained and developed following the merger. This provisional work has already identified a number of complementary functions in the two bodies which could be strengthened and streamlined through the merger, including their respective work on: housing and transport in the countryside, farming and dissemination of information.

  The new body will work closely with Local Authorities, the rural voluntary sector, the Regional Development Agencies—which are taking over the rural regeneration programmes of the Rural Development Commission—and with Government bodies responsible for historical heritage, agriculture, forestry, nature conservation, recreation, tourism, environmental protection and rural services to produce well thought out, integrated solutions to the problems raised in developing a living countryside. This is important because we recognise that the beauty of the English countryside is only one side of the coin. We must value this great resource and, at the same time, strengthen the rural economy and tackle social exclusion which can be hidden within it.

  The able and dedicated staff of both the Countryside Commission and the Rural Development Commission will form the core of the new body, just as those staff transferring to the Regional Development Agencies with

  291
  the responsibility for the rural regeneration programme will be a valuable asset to those bodies. The current Commissioners—like their predecessors—have wide ranging expertise and I hope that many of them will be prepared to make this available to the new organisation.

  Rural England faces challenges of economic and social change and European developments such as reforms of the Common Agricultural Policy and Structural Funds, against the background of increased public demand for the protection of the countryside and wider access to it. I am confident that the new organisation, integrating both Commissions' existing responsibilities but with a refocused remit, will be an effective champion for rural England and the English Countryside.

  Housing
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will require local authority housing services to include an empty homes strategy in their published housing strategies. [35894]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Local authorities are expected to produce a housing strategy covering all aspects of housing as they have responsibility towards their tenants and residents to make sure that the best use is made of all housing in their area. This strategy is used as part of the assessment on which the allocation of capital resources is based. Within this strategy local authorities should consider whether empty property in the local area can be brought back into use to meet local needs and set out how this will be achieved.

  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how he intends to promote the availability of low-cost houses for rent in appropriate numbers in rural areas. [36057]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Through the Capital Receipts Initiative we are making an extra £800 million available to local authorities in 1997/98 and 1998/99 which they will be investing in improvements to existing housing and the provision of new social lettings in both urban and rural areas in partnership with Registered Social Landlords.

  Guidance issued by my Department to local authorities on the preparation of their housing strategies highlights the need to identify and prioritise rural housing needs alongside other housing needs in their areas. It is for local authorities to set priorities which guide the allocation of both the Housing Corporation's and their own funding for new social housing in their areas. However, for 1998/99 we have asked the Housing Corporation to aim for around 3.4% of the new social lettings approved under the Approved Development Programme to be in small rural villages with a population of 3,000 or less.

  The rural "exceptions" policy enables local planning authorities to grant consent for sites which would not normally be released for development, to provide low-cost housing for local needs. In addition, our planning and affordable housing policy enables local planning authorities to seek the inclusion of an element of affordable housing in new housing developments. We have recently consulted on changes to the policy which will further assist the supply of affordable housing in rural areas.
  292
  The Rural Development Commission also plays a key role in promoting low-cost housing in rural areas. In particular their Rural Enablers scheme aims to bring together local communities, local authorities, housing associations, landowners and developers to facilitate the development of social housing.

  Slaughterhouse Waste
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what regulations govern the disposal of slaughterhouse waste on agricultural land. [36063]

  Angela Eagle
  Activities involving the recovery or disposal of waste are subject to control under the amended EC Framework Directive on waste. The waste management licensing system established under Part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994 is the main means by which the requirements of the Framework Directive have been transposed into national law. Under this system, anyone who deposits, recovers or disposes of waste must do so in compliance with the conditions of a waste management licence or with the conditions of an exception from waste management licensing.

  The speading of waste on land which results in benefit to agriculture or ecological improvement is classified as a waste recovery operation under the Directive and an exemption from licensing for certain types of waste has been provided in Regulation 17 and paragraph 7 of Schedule 3 to the 1994 Regulations. One of the types of waste covered by the exemption is blood and gut contents from abattoirs. We intend to review the exemption in the light of the findings of a research project which is due to be completed at the end of April. I indicated on 13 March 1998, Official Report, column 928, some of the issues I would like to see addressed in the review of the exemption.

  The carcases of all BSE suspect cattle are directly incinerated. Commission Regulation No. 716/96 requires that cattle slaughtered under the Over Thirty Months/Scheme are either incinerated or rendered and destroyed. No blood from either group of cattle is being spread on land.

  Departmental Employees (Scotland)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many staff are employed in Scotland by his Department; and where those staff are located. [36248]

  Angela Eagle
  At 1 March 1998, my Department employed 650 permanent staff in Scotland. The table gives the numbers of staff in each location.

  DETR staff in Scotland by location

  Location

  Staff

  Aberdeen

  84

  Airdrie

  6

  Ayr

  4

  Bathgate

  5

  Bishopbriggs

  42

  Dumbarton

  2

  Dumfries

  6

  Dundee

  16

  293

  DETR staff in Scotland by location

  Location

  Staff

  Dunfermline

  1

  East Kilbride

  19

  Edinburgh

  122

  Elgin

  3

  Falkirk

  2

  Galashiels

  1

  Glasgow

  80

  Greenock

  35

  Hamilton

  1

  Inverness

  20

  Kilmarnock

  16

  Kirkcaldy

  10

  Leith

  28

  Livingstone

  34

  Melrose

  1

  Oban

  25

  Paisley

  4

  Pentland

  21

  Perth

  15

  Peterhead

  1

  Saltcoats

  2

  Shetland

  18

  Stirling

  2

  Stornoway

  21

  Wick

  3

  Total

  650

  Green Transport
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what specific changes to departmental transport arrangements have to date been implemented following the receipt of the Green Transport Plan; [36646]

  (2) on what date he plans to introduce a green commuting plan. [36658]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Since the "Guide to Green Transport Plans" was circulated to all Departments in September last year, my Department has been working on a pilot project to prepare Green Transport Plans for three headquarters buildings. The first findings are due to be received shortly.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if the meetings of Green Ministers on(a) 30 July 1997 and (b) 18 December 1997 discussed the Green Transport Plan; and what conclusions were reached; [36633]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the success of the Green Transport Plan in respect of the implementation of its recommendations by departments; [36634]

  (3) what steps he is taking to secure implementation across Government of the recommendations in the Green Transport Plan; what monitoring of departments he has put in place; and if he will make a statement. [36635]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Green Transport Plans were discussed at the meetings of Green Ministers on 30 July and 18 December. All Departments were given copies of the "Guide to Green Transport Plans" in September last year and asked to prepare green transport plans. Discussions are proceeding on setting appropriate 294
  deadlines for producing these plans. Progress in drawing up and implementing plans is being monitored at meetings of Green Ministers.

  Royal Ordnance, Chorley
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the suitability of the Royal Ordnance Factory site in Chorley as the location for the headquarters of the planned Regional Development Agency for the North West. [36515]

  Mr. Caborn
  Ministers have made no assessment of potential sites for the headquarters of the Regional Development Agency for the North West. This will be a matter for the RDA Board, when appointed later this year.

  New Deal
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when information will be published about the location of the pathfinder areas for the New Deal for Communities; and if he will make a statement. [36502]

  Angela Eagle
  Detailed proposals for the New Deal for Communities are now being developed by the Deputy Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, working closely with other key Ministers and the Social Exclusion Unit. No decisions have yet been taken about the location of the pathfinder areas, or on the timing of any further announcements.

  Radioactive Waste
  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans the Environment Agency has for the disposal of Amersham's radioactive waste generated at Harwell, following its decision not to transport it to Cardiff; and if he will make a statement. [36510]

  Angela Eagle
  I understand that on 24 March the Environment Agency granted authorisation for the transfer of intermediate-level radioactive waste from Amersham's Harwell site to the company's site at Cardiff.

  Great Western Trains
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the performance of Great Western Trains in terms of(a) punctuality and (b) reliability in relation to its Charter targets in each year since it was awarded its franchise; and how much has been paid by Great Western in penalties, and on what occasions, for failing to meet such standards. [36732]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Great Western's performance details appear in the Franchising Director's quarterly bulletins which are in the Library of the House. Great Western have not paid any financial penalties for poor performance as there is no incentive regime in their Franchise Agreement. Following the offer by FirstGroup PLC to take over the franchise, the Franchising Director has agreed a regime of fixed penalties for Great Western in respect of cancellations and delays over 20 minutes.

  Local Government Finance
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the consultation papers arising from the local government finance review will be published. [37050]

  Ms Armstrong
  Three consulting papers will be published on Monday 30 March:Improving local financial accountability, Business Rates, and Capital Finance.

  Finance is the third element in the Government's programme to modernise local government. Many of the ideas floated in the finance papers draw on our earlier consultation papers on renewing local democracy and introducing best value. The finance papers include options for giving councils more discretion over local tax and spending decisions by ending crude and universal capping and providing a new power to set a local business rate.

  Copies of the consultation papers will be sent to every MP and placed in the Library.

  Challenge Fund
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will make an announcement about the successful bids under Round Four of the Single Regeneration Budget Challenge Fund. [37051]

  Mr. Caborn
  The detailed list of successful bids under Round 4 of the SRB Challenge Fund will be published on Monday, 30 March. In addition, brief descriptions of the successful bids in their region will be sent to hon. Members. Full copies of the bid documents for successful bids will be held for inspection at Government Offices for the Regions.

  I am today placing in the Library of the House summary information about Round 4, which operated under revised guidance issued by the Government in July 1997. Subject to finalising the details of the list of successful bids, to the availability of resources, and to the satisfactory agreement and implementation of Delivery Plans, the Government intend to make available financial support for some 120 successful bids, which include proposals to address key priorities such as social exclusion, education, employment and training, community safety and prevention of drug misuse.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 26 February 1998,Official Report, column 332, what further response he has had from London and Continental Railways in respect of revised financing proposals for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link. [37147]

  Mr. Prescott
  I have received a progress report and further developed proposals from London and Continental Railways in conjunction with other companies, notably Railtrack, invited by the consortium to participate in trying to take forward the Channel Tunnel Rail Link under the existing Development Agreement. The parties' latest report on progress makes material inroads into the £1.2 billion additional subsidy which was sought by LCR in January, and which I rejected as unacceptable. LCR have proposed a transport operator to take 296
  responsibility for Eurostar services, and that the construction of the Rail Link be in two phases. These proposals do not yet meet the Government's requirements, a view which is accepted by LCR and by Railtrack. Both companies agree that further significant improvements can be achieved in each of three key areas: reducing the additional cost to the taxpayer; increasing the extent to which risk is retained in the private sector; and establishing an incentive sufficient to ensure the construction of the whole of the Rail Link.

  I am satisfied that sufficient progress has been made, and is in prospect, for the cure period available under the CTRL Development Agreement to be extended to 29 May 1998, in order to conclude a satisfactory agreement if one is achievable.

PRIME MINISTER

  Children Act 1989
  Mr. Donald Anderson
  To ask the Prime Minister what arrangements he has made to transfer responsibility for day care policy under the Children Act 1989 from the Department of Health to the Department for Education and Employment. [37149]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government set out before the election their intention to transfer responsibility for policy and the regulation of day care under Sections 18 and 19 and Part X of the Children Act from the Department of Health to the Department for Education and Employment. I am able to announce today that this transfer will take place on 1 April 1998. We recognise that it is increasingly difficult to make a distinction between day care and education, and we must integrate the two if we are to meet fully the needs of young children and their parents. The Department of Health will retain responsibility for the provision of day care for children in need under Section 18(1) and 18(5) as part of family support services, as well as other social care duties, such as child protection, outside these parts of the Act. This transfer of responsibilities between central Government Departments does not directly affect the way local authorities may organise their functions. The responsibility for services and regulation through the Children Act remains a function of the Social Services Committee under existing statutory requirements but this may change as policy in this area develops.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Radiotherapy Injuries (Compensation)
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what have been the legal aid costs in the last three years arising from the cases of women seeking compensation for injuries caused by radiotherapy treatment after breast cancer. [35708]

  Mr. Hoon
  Over the last three years, a total of £1,727,812 has been paid in legal aid costs under a contract between the Legal Aid Board and the firm of solicitors representing women seeking compensation for injuries caused by radiotherapy treatment after breast cancer. The final costs will not be known until the cases are finished and the court's decision is known.

  Small Claims
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many cases have been taken to the small claims courts in each of the last five years; how many judgments in favour of the claimants were made in each year as a result of these cases; and in how many cases in each year the orders have been successfully enforced. [36340]

  Mr. Hoon
  The figures requested are as follows:

  Year

  Cases heard

  Judgment for plaintiff

  1993

  105,843

  —

  1994

  87,885

  —

  1995

  88,170

  —

  1996

  94,050

  181,720

  1997

  97,813

  180,680

  1 Figures are derived from a three month sample.

  Figures on judgments for plaintiffs before 1996 and on successfully enforced cases are not collected centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Green Transport
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department on what date he plans to introduce a green commuting plan. [36668]

  Mr. Hoon
  A publication date for the introduction of a green commuter plan has not yet been finalised. Raising staff awareness of the cost of the journey to work, and developing a package of measures to encourage the use of alternatives, forms part of our revised Environment Strategy and Green Transport Plan about which we are currently consulting.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what specific changes to departmental transport arrangements have to date been implemented following the receipt of the Green Transport Plan. [36639]

  Mr. Hoon
  No specific changes have been made to our transport arrangements, following receipt of the Guide to Green Transport Plan. The guide has assisted the Department to draft a Green Transport Plan about which we are currently consulting.

  Magistrates
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answer of 2 March 1998,Official Report, column 450, on

  Conference

  Purpose

  Estimated costs (£)

  Anglo-German Judicial Conference on Family Law 18 to 20 May 1997. The conference was jointly organised by the Cardiff Law School, the President of the Family Division's International Committee, the German Federal Ministry of Justice and the Lord Chancellor's Department.

  To improve mutual understanding of the operation of each country's legal system particularly in the area of child abduction and discussion of legal problems of mutual interest. There were 53 participants including judges, lawyers, academics and judges from both Germany and the UK.

  2,700 (contribution)

  298
  magistrates courts, when he expects the Justices' Chief Executive for Derbyshire MCC to write to the hon. Member for West Derbyshire. [36733]

  Mr. Hoon
  I have been told that a letter will be sent today.

  Immigration Appeals
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many cases have been taken to immigration appeals tribunals in each of the last five years; and what has been the administrative cost of the appeal tribunals system in each of the last five years. [36341]

  Mr. Hoon
  The number of cases1which have been taken to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal in each of the last five years is:

  £

  1993–94

  6,551

  1994–95

  27,792

  1995–96

  8,549

  1996–97

  11,720

  1997–98

  313,368

  It is not possible to separate the administrative costs of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal alone but I can provide the following information for the Immigration Appellate Authority as a whole:

  £

  1994–95

  6,965,344

  1995–96

  8,404,699

  1996–97

  11,388,311

  1997–98

  312,513,282

  1These figures relate to initial applications. Only a proportion of this figure will be allowed and will then proceed to full hearing as an 'appeal'.

  2This is an estimate as accurate historical data are not available for this year

  3Projected figure.

  Information for 1993–94 is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Conferences
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the conferences held by his Department since 1 May 1997, giving in each case the(a) purpose and (b) estimated cost. [27794]

  Mr. Hoon
  The conferences held by this Department since 1 May, or which we have funded or part funded, or have otherwise helped to organise are shown in the table.
  299

  Conference

  Purpose

  Estimated costs (£)

  Fast Track Cost Conference 9 July 1997

  To inform Sir Peter Middleton's Review of Civil Justice and Legal Aid Proposals

  482

  Anglo-German Judicial Exchange 22 to 25 September 1997

  This is part of a series of conferences organised for senior judges to obtain an improved understanding and awareness of the laws, procedures and institutions of each country and to discuss the relevance of comparative law and comparative legal procedure to judicial work. Eight judges and three academics from each country participated in the conference. This conference follows one held in Germany in September 1993. Another conference is being organised in Germany for 1999. The host national pays all the conference costs.

  14,000

  International Conference on Administrative Justice 26–28 November 1997 Organised by the University of Bristol

  To provide a forum for the discussion of the broad range of issues relevant to administrative justice

  15,000 (contribution)

  Minority Lawyers Conference-organised with the Bar and Law Society 29 November 1997

  To promote equality of opportunity for ethnic minority lawyers and to discuss issues related to this.

  No cost to the Department

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Drugs
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what date has been set for the release of the 1996 drug arrest and seizure statistics. [36482]

  Mr. George Howarth
  It is hoped to publish the Home Office "Statistics of Drug Seizures and Offenders dealt with, United Kingdom, 1996" during the first half of April 1998.

  Young Offender Institutions
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list(a) the total resources allocated for education services to (b) the average population in and

  Young offender institutions: average population and total education expenditure 1995–96 to 1997–98

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98 (to date)

  Establishment

  Average population

  Total spend (£000)

  Average population

  Total spend (£000)

  Average population

  Total spend (£000)

  Aylesbury

  221

  358

  239

  305

  312

  366

  Brinsford

  461

  280

  490

  180

  521

  154

  Castington

  289

  235

  294

  201

  314

  207

  Deerbolt

  399

  362

  415

  364

  420

  295

  Dover

  284

  174

  305

  134

  305

  133

  Feltham

  811

  367

  865

  399

  895

  330

  Glen Parva

  774

  487

  867

  417

  875

  400

  Hatfield

  153

  192

  160

  176

  150

  184

  Hindley

  291

  367

  501

  678

  526

  662

  Hollesley Bay

  327

  476

  375

  409

  431

  276

  Huntercombe

  230

  341

  243

  303

  261

  289

  Lancaster Farms

  355

  327

  469

  407

  507

  421

  Onley

  486

  314

  515

  314

  567

  414

  Portland

  437

  421

  515

  450

  544

  401

  Stoke Heath

  288

  277

  315

  237

  416

  254

  Swinfen Hall

  184

  210

  195

  199

  201

  191

  Thorn Cross

  173

  264

  235

  391

  224

  421

  Wellington

  112

  200

  113

  152

  151

  156

  Wetherby

  132

  261

  119

  216

  277

  326

  300
  (c) the age range of those held in each young offender institution in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [35344]

  Ms Quin
  Male Young Offender Institutions hold offenders aged from 15 to 20 years of age. There will be some inmates in such institutions aged 21 who are waiting for transfer to adult establishments or who are nearing release so that transfer to an adult establishment is not worthwhile.

  The average populations of each Young Offender Institution, and the total amounts spent through the education contract on the purchase of education services and education materials, in each of the last three years, are given in the table.

  The Young Offender Institutions at Guys Marsh, Moorland, Prescoed and Reading are or were run jointly with adult establishments. Education expenditure on young offenders is not available as a separate figure.
  301
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many convicted 15-year-olds were removed from young offenders' institutions to secure units after being reviewed under Paragraph 20 of the Prison Office Circular 38/92 in each of the last three years. [35607]

  Ms Quin
  This information is not recorded centrally. It is hoped that a new data system will be instituted to allow the production of this and similar information in the future.

  Bristol Prison
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the use of HM Prison Bristol as a Category A prison; what assessment he has made of the impact of the prison on local residential neighbourhoods; and what consultation was carried out with local residents. [35750]

  Ms Quin
  On 15 January 1997, it was announced that Bristol prison would continue to have category A remand prisoners and would be one of eight prisons in England and Wales with improved security to be used for this purpose. This decision represented no change in the status of the prison and was not the subject of consultation with local residents. However, related building work was the subject of applications for planning clearance and the governor held an informal meeting with local councillors to explain these proposals before the applications were granted. Subsequently, concerns were raised by local residents and these have been addressed by the Prison Service through the governor by means of a public meeting, visits to the prison by residents, visits to residents in their homes and by consultation with the local residents' group and others. Modifications to the building work have been made as a result of this consultation, which continues.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what special arrangements are made at HM Prison Bristol in relation to its proximity to local schools; and if he will make a statement. [35751]

  Ms Quin
  There is a primary school which has been situated across the road from Bristol Prison since the turn of the century. An infants and a nursery school, under the same management, are situated a little further away. The prison staff have long maintained very close relations with the schools and senior staff meet regularly with the headmaster to discuss and resolve any problems that might arise. The prison has a "good neighbour" policy towards the schools and co-operates in a number of schemes for the pupils' benefit. At a recent public meeting, the headmaster praised the attitude of the prison towards his schools and emphasised the excellent rapport between them. The police have rescheduled court escort arrangements to avoid, whenever possible, times when schoolchildren might be on the local streets.

  Women's Refuges
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what financial help has been given by his Department towards the establishment and running of women's refuges in the Greater London area in each of the last three years; [36146]
  302
  (2) if he will list the number of women's refuges in each London borough. [36152]

  Mr. Michael
  Information on the number of refuges is not routinely collected. However, in 1995 the then Department of the Environment commissioned Women's Aid Federation (England) to undertake a census and their information relating to the London Boroughs from this census is in the table.

  Refuges are generally funded not from central Government but from rents, charitable sources, local authority housing and social services payments. In London, the London Boroughs Grants Unit may provide financial help and, where London Boroughs identify the development of refuges as a priority, Housing Corporation capital and revenue resources can contribute to building and housing management costs. The Home Office does not hold funds for the support of such refuges and no such grants have been made over the last three years.

  Refuge provision in London: 1995

  London Borough

  Total

  Barking and Dagenham

  1

  Barnet

  1

  Bexley

  3

  Brent

  3

  Bromley

  4

  Camden

  4

  Croydon

  3

  Ealing

  2

  Enfield

  4

  Greenwich

  7

  Hackney

  6

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  3

  Haringey

  6

  Harrow

  1

  Hillingdon

  1

  Hounslow

  5

  Islington

  3

  Kensington and Chelsea

  3

  Kingston

  2

  Lambeth

  5

  Lewisham

  6

  Merton

  7

  Newham

  4

  Redbridge

  1

  Southwark

  4

  Sutton

  3

  Tower Hamlets

  3

  Waltham Forest

  3

  Wandsworth

  4

  Westminster

  4

  Total

  106

  Green Transport
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what specific changes to departmental transport arrangements have to date been implemented following the receipt of the Green Transport Plan; [36648]

  (2) on what date he plans to introduce a green commuting plan. [36665]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions circulated to all Departments in September last year a "Guide to Green Transport Plans". The Home Office has started to consider how to respond to its recommendations.

  Commission for Racial Equality
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding the funding of complainant aid work by the Commission for Racial Equality. [36604]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We have received five letters from individuals and one signed by twelve people, arguing that the funding should continue.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has held recently with the Commission for Racial Equality regarding the funding of complainant aid work. [36605]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have held no discussions on this issue, which I understand is currently being looked at by the Commission.

  Rape
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what procedures exist for those falsely accused of rape to pursue compensation. [36421]

  Mr. Michael
  The Government are prepared under certain specified circumstances to pay compensation to those who have been wrongfully convicted of or charged with rape, or any other crime. There is no automatic entitlement to such compensation, but all applications are considered, first under the provisions of section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, and then, if those requirements are not met, under the ex-gratia arrangements announced by the then Home Secretary in his statement on 29 November 1985,Official Report, columns 689–90. My right hon. Friend announced on 17 June 1997, Official Report, column 99, that he would continue to be bound by those arrangements. In addition. In addition, persons who have grounds for an action for unlawful arrest or malicious prosecution have a remedy in the civil courts against the person or authority responsible.

  Freemasonry
  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his proposals require that police officers involved in a police complaints investigation must register membership of the Freemasons. [35926]

  Mr. Michael
  We will consider such detailed matters, in consultation with the police associations, as part of the work on implementing the policy on declaration and registration of membership of the freemasons by those serving in, or seeking appointment to, the relevant parts of the criminal justice system. My right hon. Friend announced this to the Home Affairs Committee on 17 February 1998.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  National Lottery
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) if he will instruct the Lottery Regulator to investigate the ergonomic design of lottery ticket machines issuing lottery tickets to customers 304
  of Camelot, with particular reference to the absence of a visual display that can be seen by the customer at the point of sale; [36078]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the means by which the numbers on lucky dip option tickets are selected; and if he will make a statement; [36080]

  (3) if he will request the Lottery Regulator to investigate the method by which Camelot issues lucky dip tickets to customers, with special reference to allowing for verbal commission of tickets. [36079]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 24 March 1998]I have asked the Acting Director-General of the National Lottery to consider the issues my hon. Friend has raised and to write to me. Once I have received his reply I will write to my hon. Friend and place copies of my reply in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) if he will list the initiatives to be paid for from the New Opportunities Fund and the amounts they will receive during the lifetime of the current National Lottery operating licence; [360651

  (2) how much money from the New Opportunities Fund will be used to fund the national childcare strategy during the lifetime of the current National Lottery licence. [36066]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the National Lottery Bill, the first three initiatives to be supported by the New Opportunities Fund will be information and communications technology training for teachers and librarians, including creation of content, healthy living centres and out of school hours activities, including childcare. As my hon. Friend Lord McIntosh announced on Second Reading of the National Lottery Bill on 18 December 1997,Official Report, House of Lords, columns 729–37, funds will be allocated as follows:
  £300 million for information and communications technology training for teachers and librarians, including £50 million for creation of content, by 2001;
  £200 million for healthy living centres by 2001, with a further £100 million thereafter; and
  £300 million for out of school hours activities by 2001, with a further £100 million thereafter. Of this £400 million, £180 million will support out of school hours learning activities and, as part of the national childcare strategy, £200 million will support out of school childcare and £20 million will support integrated childcare and learning schemes.

  Great Britain Sports Council
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the(a) location of, (b) running costs of, (c) salary costs of and (d) number of staff based at the head office of the Great Britain Sports Council, the percentage of total staff based (i) at head office, (ii) in London and (iii) in Scotland and the percentage of salary and running costs incurred in (1) London and (2) Scotland. [36116]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 25 March 1998]The United Kingdom Sports Council (UKSC) assumed the UK-wide responsibilities of the Great Britain Sports Council on 1 January 1997. The information requested is as follows:(a) London; (b) £0.991 million in 1997–98

  305
  (forecast outturn); (c) £1,037 million in 1997–98 (forecast outturn); and, (d) 33. All UKSC staff are based at the organisation's office in London.

  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the responsibilities of the Great Britain Sports Council in Scotland. [36115]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 25 March 1998]The responsibilities and functions of the GB Sports Council were transferred to the United Kingdom and the English Sports Councils from 1 January 1997. The United Kingdom Sports Council's (UKSC) responsibilities are under review as part of the Government's Comprehensive Spending Review.

  The UKSC is responsible for fostering, supporting and encouraging the development of sport and physical recreation, the achievement of excellence, and the provision of sporting facilities at a UK level. In addition, the UKSC takes a lead among the Sports Councils on issues which require strategic planning, co-ordination and representation where they are for the benefit of the UK as a whole.

  The functions of the UKSC in respect of the whole United Kingdom are:
  to identify sporting policies that should have a UK-wide application;
  to identify areas of unnecessary duplication, overlap and waste in the way sport is administered in the UK;
  to consider with the Sports Councils of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland how grant programmes for sports bodies with a UK or Great Britain remit could best be administered, and to administer those programmes;
  to oversee policy on sports science, sports medicine, drug control, and coaching and other areas where there may be a need for the Home Country Sports Councils to deliver a consistent UK-wide policy;
  to co-ordinate policy for bringing major international sporting events to the UK; and,
  to represent the UK internationally and to increase the influence of the UK at international level.

  The Home Country Sports Council are responsible for sports and facilities development, and for supporting our elite athletes in those sports in which we compete internationally on a Home Country basis.

  Libraries
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the removal of books from the King's Library in the British Museum and their transfer to the new British Library in St. Pancras. [36385]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  In 1972, the British Library Act established the national library of the United Kingdom, incorporating the library of the British Museum and including the King's Library. The collections have remained at the British Museum until completion of their new home in the British Library building at St. Pancras.306
  Separation of the King's Library from the rest of the Library's printed archive would be detrimental to the integrity and cohesiveness of the national collections. Plans for its move have been in the public domain for the past thirty years.

  In the new building, the King's Library will be housed in the best possible conditions for access, preservation and use. It will stand in a specially designed glass tower at the physical heart of the library, making it more visible and accessible to the public. It will also be more secure and in an improved environment. The glass tower is fully air-conditioned to control temperature, humidity and atmospheric pollutants and the glass is especially constructed to provide fire protection and heat resistance.

  Royal Parks
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the number of staff employed at the head office of the Royal Parks Agency; what percentage this represents of total staff; what the salary and running costs are of the head office; and what percentage of total salary and running costs this represents. [36144]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  [holding answer 26 March 1998]Responsibility for the subject of this question has been delegated to the Royal Parks Agency under its Chief Executive, Mr. David Welch. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from David Welch to Mr. John Swinney, dated 27 March 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question asking about the number and salary costs of the staff employed at the head office of the Royal Parks Agency.
  The total number of staff employed at the Agency's head office is 34, which is 14 per cent. of the total staff. The estimated annual salary costs and running costs of the head office staff for 1997/98 are £877,611 and £368,151 respectively. This represents 15.7 per cent. of the Agency's total salary and running costs.

  Historic Royal Palaces
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many staff are employed at the head office of the Historic Royal Palaces agency; what percentage this represents of total staff; what percentage of staff are based in the south-east of England; what are running costs of the head office; and what percentage of total salary and running costs this figure represents. [36145]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  100 staff are employed at head office which is 19.8 per cent. of the total staff, all of whom are based in the south-east of England. The running costs of the head office are expected to be £2.62 million in 1997–98 which is 22.9 per cent. of the total running costs. Head office comprises the Chief Executive's office,
  307
  Central Finance, and Personnel Services, and the Curatorial and Surveyor of the Fabric's Departments. Running costs comprise pay, recruitment, training, travel and expenses, consultancies and the employment of agency staff.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Rural Areas
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will publish his Government's policy for rural areas. [36029]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government have made very clear their commitment to opportunity, fairness and prosperity for all, whether they live in country or city. Our policies

  Member state

  Date

  Effect of legislation

  Austria

  December 1990

  Feeding to ruminants of MBM, meat, bone, blood, liver and similar meals banned

  Denmark

  1990

  Ban on ruminant derived feed being fed to ruminants

  Finland

  1990

  Feeding of imported animal protein banned

  France

  1990

  MBM banned from bovine feed

  Italy

  November 1989

  Ban on import of ruminant MBM from UK and Republic of Ireland

  Netherlands

  August 1989

  Ban on feeding ruminant MBM, meat meal, bonemeal and blood to ruminants

  1994

  Ban extended to cover mammalian MBM fed to ruminants

  Republic of Ireland

  August 1990

  Ban on feeding ruminants with protein derived from ruminants

  Sweden

  December 1990

  Meat and bone products from ruminants banned from ruminant feed

  December 1993

  Ban extended to all products from ruminants except fats, milk and milk products

  We believe that Belgium, Germany, Greece, Luxembourg, Portugal and Spain had no national measures in places prior to the introduction of EU-wide measures.

  We are not aware of any rules prohibiting the feeding of mammalian protein to non-ruminant livestock except for those in place in the UK.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what tonnage of meat and bone meal was used in animal rations in each of the five years preceding its prohibition. [36691]

  Mr. Rooker
  The tonnages of meat and bone meal used by the Great Britain animal feed compound industry in the years preceding its prohibition were:

  Year

  Thousand tonnes

  1991

  Not readily available

  1992

  212

  1993

  211

  1994

  212

  1995

  209

  308
  are working to that end and will continue to do so. Our manifesto pledged to recognise the special needs of rural areas and we will continue to ensure that our policies take account of the rural dimension, where appropriate.

  Animal Feed
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in which year each member state of the EU banned the feeding of animal protein to(a) ruminants and (b) other meat animals. [36690]

  Mr. Rooker
  An EU-wide ban of the feeding of mammalian protein to ruminants was introduced by Commission Decision 94/381/EC on 27 June 1994. Some Member States introduced national provisions before the Commission Decision came into force. Those which we know about are as follows:

  Figures for usage by the Northern Ireland compound feed industry are available only from 1993 onwards and are as follows:

  Year

  Thousand tonnes

  1993

  23

  1994

  24

  1995

  26

  These figures do not take account of any meat and bone meal which may be used directly by farmers for animal feed.

  Cattle Tagging
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects the double ear tagging systems for cattle to be fully operational; and if he will make a statement. [36602]

  Mr. Rooker
  Double ear tagging of cattle became a requirement from 1 January 1998 as part of the measures included within Council Regulation (EC) No. 820/97. Insofar as ear tag supplies have allowed, it has been fully operational from that date.

  Flood Defences
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he will take to ensure that the grant given to the Environment Agency for vital flood defence work will be made available for that purpose. [35942]

  Mr. Morley
  Grant payments to the Environment Agency by this Department for flood defence capital works are made in respect of specific approved schemes so can be used only for that purpose. For approval for grant aid schemes must meet technical, economic and environmental criteria, and achieve an appropriate priority score based on Ministerial priorities, urgency and benefit:cost ratio.

  Beef Bones
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what tonnage of beef bones are currently being

  UK imports of flours, meals and pellets, of meat or meat offal (inc.tankage) unfit for human consumption: greave

  Unit: tones

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  EC

  Belgium-Luxembourg

  172

  337

  312

  275

  447

  —

  5

  138

  891

  2,191

  Denmark

  2,177

  2,139

  1,164

  654

  1,456

  1,014

  987

  6,558

  419

  105

  France

  325

  320

  371

  —

  299

  274

  1

  32

  365

  1,630

  Germany

  203

  31

  1,362

  2,514

  2,813

  2,200

  2,812

  3,351

  2,466

  2,078

  Greece

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  631

  —

  —

  Irish Republic

  28,189

  13,058

  17,594

  15,219

  21,989

  13,885

  17,745

  15,329

  9,863

  4,088

  Italy

  120

  60

  16

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  2,155

  Netherlands

  4,358

  4,743

  3,143

  2,806

  2,890

  1,871

  1,414

  3,854

  1,344

  3,250

  Spain

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  727

  0

  1,470

  EC total

  35,544

  20,689

  23,962

  21,468

  29,895

  19,244

  22,964

  30,621

  15,349

  16,968

  Non-EC

  Sweden

  2,894

  4,310

  1,575

  —

  19

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  New Zealand

  176

  139

  68

  63

  66

  194

  563

  725

  1,001

  1,029

  Iceland

  —

  —

  450

  —

  —

  —

  —

  884

  —

  —

  USA

  164

  —

  1

  215

  195

  60

  57

  88

  107

  79

  Canary Islands

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  502

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Switzerland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  2

  86

  141

  Canada

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  219

  Indonesia

  21

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  129

  —

  Australia

  18

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  40

  —

  —

  —

  Israel

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  43

  —

  Brazil

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  23

  —

  —

  —

  Taiwan

  —

  —

  3

  15

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Poland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6

  4

  7

  —

  —

  South Africa

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  Chile

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  Non-EC total

  3,272

  4,449

  2,097

  293

  279

  763

  687

  1,706

  1,368

  1,467

  Grand total

  38,816

  25,138

  26,059

  21,761

  30,174

  20,007

  23,651

  32,326

  16,717

  18,435

  Notes:

  0 = small values which round down to zero.

  1996 and 1997 data are provisional and subject to amendment.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Export Licences
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 11 March 1998,Official Report, column 257, on export licences, how many applications in each of the stated four week periods his Department recommended for refusal. [36738]
  310
  imported into the United Kingdom; and from which countries. [36688]

  Mr. Rooker
  Beef bones are not separately identified in the Combined Nomenclature. Imports of greaves, flours and meals, of meat or meat offal (including tankage), unfit for human consumption, are shown in the table. The tonnages from each country for the last ten years of these exports are taken from the Official Overseas Trade Statistics.

  The data will be subject to a degree of statistical error. The overall level of errors will be low, but these errors will have a much greater proportional effect on countries with small values or volumes of trade. Therefore great care is needed when interpreting the data in the table as the data will inevitably include a number of errors.

  Mr. Fatchett
  Licences to export strategic goods are issued by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and the Export Control Organisation of the DTI is the licensing authority. All relevant individual licence applications are circulated by DTI to other Government departments with a policy interest. These include the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development. The advice that is given by these
  311
  departments to DTI falls into the category of internal discussion and advice, the disclosure of which would harm the frankness and candour of internal discussion and which is being withheld under exemption number 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Departmental Employees (Scotland)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many staff are employed in Scotland by his Department, or executive agencies responsible to his Department; and where those staff are located. [36211]

  Mr. Fatchett
  There are no staff in this Department, or in executive agencies responsible to this Department, employed in Scotland.

  EU Common Foreign and Security Policy
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 17 March 1998, Official Report, column 555, on EU Common Foreign and Security Policy if he will make it his policy to place in the Library the minutes of the working groups' meetings. [36085]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  We are committed to ensuring more effective parliamentary scrutiny of, and greater openness in EU business, including Common Foreign and Security Policy. We have made proposals accordingly both in the EU and at a national level.

  We do not, however, have discretion unilaterally to disclose documents that reveal the negotiating position of individual Member States or which could damage the conduct of our national relations. We do not therefore propose to place records of Common Foreign and Security Policy working group meetings in the Library.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 17 March 1998, Official Report, columns 555–57, on EU Common Foreign and Security Policy, when the working groups on(a) armaments policy, (b) conventional arms exports, (c) human rights, (d) the Middle East/Gulf, (e) Middle East Peace Process and (f) nuclear non-proliferation, last met and what subjects were discussed. [36086]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Working Group on Armaments Policy last met on 9 March; the Conventional Arms Exports one on 26 March; the Human Rights one on 2 March; the Middle East/Gulf one on 12 March; the Middle East Peace Process one on 12 March; and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation one on 19 March.

  On the matter of what was discussed at the meetings I refer the hon. and learned Member to my answer to his previous question (36085).

  Israel
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 23 March 1998, Official Report, column 31, what was the purpose of the meeting of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Baroness Symons, with the Ambassador of Israel on 18 March; and if he will make a statement on the meeting. [36734]
  312
  Mr. Fatchett
  The meeting between my noble Friend Baroness Symons and Ambassador Zeigerman was a long-standing engagement. They discussed the Middle East Peace Process and bilateral relations.

  Croatia
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he made to the foreign secretary of Croatia concerning recent speeches by President Tudjman. [36735]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We have made clear to the Croatian Government, bilaterally and in our capacity as Presidency of the European Union, that we deplore the tone and content of President Tudjman's recent speech to the HDZ National Congress. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has written to President Tudjman to say that Croatia will not move closer to the European Union without demonstrating a clear, long-term commitment to the Dayton and Erdut peace Agreements, a two-way refugee return process, ethnic reconciliation and democratic reform.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Appeals
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Attorney-General how many appeals against(a) sentence and (b) conviction were made to the Court of Appeal in each of the last three years; and how many of those were successful. [35717]

  Mr. Hoon
  I have been asked to reply. The figures requested are as follows:

  Year

  Appeals against sentence made

  Appeals against sentence allowed

  Appeals against conviction made

  Appeals against conviction allowed

  1995

  5,794

  1,222

  2,393

  253

  1996

  6,436

  1,379

  2,288

  250

  1997

  6,357

  1,331

  2,318

  186

DEFENCE

  Gulf War Syndrome
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which scientific establishments are carrying out the research programme announced in July 1997 into the possible health effects of the combination of vaccines and NAPS tablets given to troops in the Gulf War to protect them against chemical and biological attack; when this work is expected to finish; when the results of this research are expected to be made public; and who has been appointed to the independent panel of experts to review the research. [33794]

  Dr. Reid
  Preliminary work on the programme of research to investigate the possible health effects of the combination of vaccines and NAPS tablets given to troops in the Gulf War has commenced at CBD Porton Down. However, only some elements of the overall programme will be carried out at CBD. The National Institute for Biological Standards and Control have also been invited
  313
  to participate and it is intended that a number of other scientific and academic bodies will contribute to the research in due course.

  It was originally estimated that the programme would take some two and a half years to complete. However, this was always subject to the advice of the Independent Panel which has been appointed to oversee the research. On the advice of the Independent Panel, additional work will now be carried out at the start of the programme to determine appropriate vaccine doses for use in animals in the subsequent studies. As a result, the programme as a whole is now expected to take some three and a half years to complete, although interim results will become available at various stages within this period. We expect that, subject to a number of factors, including Home Office approval for the necessary animal tests, it should be possible to publish results from the first phase of work at the end of 1998 or in early 1999.

  The Independent Panel is chaired by Professor Harrison C. Spencer, Dean of The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. The other members of the Panel are: Professor J. E. Banatvala, St. Thomas's Hospital, London; Professor P. Beverley, The Edward Jenner Institute for Vaccine Research; Dr. J. Bird, Burden Neurological Hospital; Dr. A. Boylston, Molecular Medicine Unit, St. James's Hospital, Leeds; Dr. P. Fawcett, Department of Clinical Neurophysiology, Newcastle General Hospital; Professor A. Grossman, Department of Endocrinology, St. Bartholomew's Hospital; Professor M. Hooper, University of Sunderland; Dr. N. Jones, Royal British Legion, London; Professor S. Lightman, Department of Medicine, Bristol Royal Infirmary; Dr. C. Martyn, MRC Environmental Epidemiology Unit, Southampton; Dr. E. Miller, Communicable Diseases Surveillance Centre, Colindale; Dr. D. Ray, Centre for Mechanisms of Human Toxicity, University of Leicester; Professor Sedgwick, Wessex Neurological Centre, Southampton; Professor A. Silman, ARC Epidemiology Research Unit, Manchester University Medical School. Professor Hooper and Dr. Jones were nominated to the panel by Gulf veterans themselves acting through the Royal British Legion.

  Dr. Geoffrey Schild, the Director of NIBSC, has also been invited to join the Panel, in view of his expertise in relation to vaccines. In order to avoid a conflict of interest, he will not be present at any discussions regarding NIBSC participation in the programme.

  Green Transport
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what specific changes to departmental transport arrangements have to date been implemented following the receipt of the green transport plan. [36650]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to him on Friday on 20 March 1998, Official Report, column 745. Guidance has been promulgated but Green Transport Plans have still to be formulated and introduced by my Department.

  Green Commuting
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date he plans to introduce a green commuting plan. [36666]
  314
  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave him on Thursday 19 March 1998,Official Report, columns 722–23, and Friday 20 March 1998, Official Report, column 745. Transport plans have not yet been completed.

  Infantry
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the latest manning figures for the infantry, listed by regiment and regional divisions. [36636]

  Dr. Reid
  The total trained officer and soldier Infantry strengths, broken down by regional Divisions, as at 1 February 1998, is detailed in the table:

  Strength

  Regional Division

  Household

  3,522

  Scottish

  3,674

  Queens

  3,953

  Kings

  4,047

  Prince of Wales

  4,681

  Light

  2,676

  Parachute

  1,999

  Royal Irish

  691

  Brigade of Gurkhas

  2,510

  Total

  27,753

  The soldier strengths broken down by Divisions and down to Infantry unit levels are detailed in the following table. The figures show only those soldiers serving at Regimental Duty with their Battalions.

  Strength

  Household Division

  1st Battalion, Grenadier Guards

  427

  N Company, Grenadier Guards

  99

  1 st Battalion, Coldstream Guards

  570

  7 Company, Coldstream Guards

  104

  1st Battalion Scots Guards

  427

  F Company, Scots Guards

  90

  1st Battalion, Irish Guards

  471

  1st Battalion, Welsh Guards

  500

  Total

  2,688

  Scottish Division

  1st Battalion, Royal Scots

  1429

  1st Battalion, Royal Highland Fusiliers

  524

  1st Battalion, King's Own Scottish Borderers

  486

  1st Battalion, Black Watch

  465

  1st Battalion, Highlanders

  490

  1st Battalion, Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders

  516

  Total

  2,910

  Queens Division

  1st Battalion, The Princess of Wales's Royal

  Regiment

  1408

  2nd Battalion, The Princess of Wales's Royal

  Regiment

  494

  1st Battalion, The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers

  535

  2nd Battalion, The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers

  600

  1st Battalion, The Royal Anglian

  485

  2nd Battalion, The Royal Anglian

  577

  Total

  3,099

  315

  Strength

  Kings Division

  1st Battalion, The King's Own Royal Border Regiment

  578

  1st Battalion, The King's Regiment

  498

  1st Battalion, The Prince of Wale's Own Regiment

  504

  1 st Battalion, The Green Howards

  574

  1st Battalion, The Queen's Lancashire Regiment

  506

  1st Battalion, The Duke of Wellington's Regiment

  524

  Total

  3,184

  Prince of Wales Division

  1st Battalion, The Devonshire and Dorset Regiment

  553

  1st Battalion, The Cheshire Regiment

  501

  1st Battalion, The Royal Welch Fusiliers

  507

  1st Battalion, The Royal Regiment of Wales

  477

  1st Battalion, The Royal Gloucester, Berkshire and Wiltshire Regiment

  527

  Gloucester, Berkshire and Wiltshire Regiment

  634

  1st Battalion, The Worcestershire and Sherwood

  Foresters Regiment

  1st Battalion Staffordshire Regiment

  500

  Total

  3,699

  Light Division

  1st Battalion, The Light Infantry

  495

  2nd Battalion, The Light Infantry

  531

  1st Battalion, The Royal Green Jackets

  464

  2nd Battalion, The Royal Green Jackets

  570

  Total

  2,060

  The Parachute Regiment

  1st Battalion, The Parachute Regiment

  482

  2nd Battalion, The Parachute Regiment

  1 432

  3rd Battalion, The Parachute Regiment

  463

  Total

  1,377

  Royal Irish Regiment

  1st Battalion, The Royal Irish Regiment

  433

  Total

  433

  The Gurkhas

  1st Royal Gurkha Rifles

  667

  2nd Royal Gurkha Rifles

  770

  Total

  1,437

  1 The Battalions marked thus also have a Gurkha Reinforcement Company, comprising 100 Gurkhas, on their strength.

  A similar breakdown for the 2,791 Infantry officers could not be provided without disproportionate cost as this information is not held centrally.

  Plutonium Stocks
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the management of UK plutonium stocks. [36637]

  Dr. Reid
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to him on Friday 13 March 1998,Official Report, columns 431–32.

  Export Licences
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 11 March 1998,Official Report,
  316
  column 195, on export licences, how many applications in each of the stated four week periods his Department recommended for refusal. [36737]

  Mr. Spellar
  Licences to export strategic goods are issued by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and the Export Control Organisation of the DTI is the licensing authority. All relevant individual licence applications are circulated by DTI to other Government departments with an interest, as determined by them in line with their policy responsibilities. These include the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development. The advice given by these departments to the DTI falls into the category of internal discussion and advice, the disclosure of which would harm the frankness and candour of internal discussion and which is being withheld under Exemption number 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Council Tax Benefit
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are her plans for the implementation of the council tax benefit changes for people in properties in bands F, G and H from April 1998. [37186]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  We gave a firm commitment to work in partnership with Local Government to monitor the implementation of the changes to Council Tax Benefit to be introduced from 1 April. During consultation with Local Government representatives we listened carefully to their concerns. In light of this we have decided that as an integral part of implementation existing Council Tax Benefit recipients should be protected so that there are no losers at the point of change.

  Our proposals are that existing recipients of Council Tax Benefit will not be affected by the restriction and will continue to be unaffected as long as they remain in the same property and do not have a break in Council Tax Benefit entitlement of more than twelve weeks.

  The proposals mean that some 65,000 recipients would not be subject to a reduction in benefit at the point of change.

  We are consulting the Local Authority Associations urgently on proposals to achieve this. We plan to lay regulations very shortly.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what gross budget will be set for the Discretionary Social Fund in 1998–99. [37190]

  Mr. Denham
  I am pleased to announce that the Social Fund gross discretionary budget for 1998–99 will be £501.2 million. £98 million will be allocated to Community Care Grants, £402.7 million to loans and £0.5 million will be set aside as a contingency reserve. The new allocation represents an increase of £33.7 million over the total gross budget for 1997–98.
  317
  On 3 March 1998, Official Report, column 609, I announced changes to the directions covering the payment of community care grants. As part of this allocation an additional £1 million has been included in the provision for community care grants to extend the help available nationally to homeless people setting up home as part of a planned programme of resettlement. This additional funding will help more of those leaving hostel accommodation to obtain grants from the Social Fund and prevent their return to an unsettled way of life.

  The Social Security Bill 1998 contains proposed changes to budgeting loan decision making. Moving to a fact based budgeting loan system will be fairer for applicants, easier for them to understand and more cost effective to administer. It is an important step towards our goal of an Active Modern Service. We also aim to further improve the fairness of the scheme by allocating the loans budget increase to achieve greater consistency of outcomes for applicants across areas. The £32.7 million increase which I am announcing today represents a first step towards this aim by enabling more loan applicants to receive an award.

  Details of individual District budget allocations will be placed in the Library on 27 March.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Wills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will list the numbers of incapacity benefit claimants within each three digit code diagnosis group of the International Classification of Diseases for the latest available period. [36180]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is set out in the table titled "Incapacity Benefit Claimants by International Classification of Diseases Code at 31 August 1997" copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  Green Transport
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) on what date she plans to introduce a green commuting plan; [36662]

  (2) what specific changes to departmental transport arrangements have to date been implemented following the receipt of the Green Transport Plan. [36641]

  Mr. Denham
  The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions circulated to all Department's in September last year a "Guide to Green Transport Plans". The Department has started to consider how to respond to its recommendations.

  State Pension (Equalisation of Ages)
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action she is taking concerning the present difference in the age that a man and a woman can claim a state pension. [35943]

  Mr. Denham
  Although currently the State pension age for men is 65 and for women is 60, from 2010 the State pension age for women will be gradually increased so that by 2020 the age is equalised at 65.

  Pensioner Incomes
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners in the UK have annual incomes in excess of(a) £25,000, (b) £30,000 and
  (c) £40,000. [36512]

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

  Annual incomes of UK pensioners in 1997–98

  Annual total income

  Pensioners

  Over £25,000

  292,000

  Over £30,000

  186,000

  Over £40,000

  82,300

  Notes:

  1. This estimate has been provided by Inland Revenue, based on the 1995/96 Survey of Personal Incomes projected forward to 1997/98 levels of earnings and prices.

  2. Annual total income is defined as the sum of all income sources that are subject to tax. It excludes certain incomes that are paid gross such as some National Savings products.

  3. Figures rounded to the nearest hundred.

  Women
  Ms Hewitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement about her plans to involve women in the development of Government policies and programmes. [34084]

  Ms Ruddock
  As Ministers for Women, we are taking forward several initiatives to ensure that women's voices are heard by Government.

  We are pleased to announce that we have commissioned a feasibility study for an electronic interactive network to build links between Government and women's organisations.

  We have also commissioned a new survey of women on the subject of family friendly employment and childcare.

  We have commissioned two pilot women's juries; both juries will be asked the question "what should be done to improve the quality of life for working mothers?"

  The results of these initiatives will feed into the policy making process, putting women's voices at the heart of Government. They will run alongside and will complement our ongoing discussions with women's organisations. We are reviewing our existing links with women's organisations in order to strengthen and enhance that dialogue.

  We are revising guidance on policy appraisal to ensure that policy makers throughout Whitehall take women's interests into account at all stages of the policy making process.

  We aim to ensure that all policy documents, all programmes, all action plans, and all legislative changes include an assessment of their impact on women.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Export Licences
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to her answer of 9 March 1998,Official Report, columns 23–24, on export

  319
  licences, how many applications in each of the stated four week periods, her Department recommended for refusal. [36736]

  Clare Short
  Licences to export strategic goods are issued by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and the Export Control Organisation of the DTI is the licensing authority. All relevant individual licence applications are circulated by DTI to other Government departments with an interest, as determined by them in line with their policy responsibilities. These include the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development.

  The advice that is given by these departments to DTI falls into the category of internal discussion and advice, the disclosure of which would harm the frankness and candour of internal discussion and which is being withheld under exemption number 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Green Commuting
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development on what date she plans to introduce a green commuting plan. [36657]

  Mr. Foulkes
  We have not at this stage fixed any firm target date for the introduction of such a plan. Changes in departmental practices aimed at discouraging the use of cars for commuting will have only a very limited impact. The Department for International Development maintains only 52 parking spaces in Central London.

  Green Transport
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what specific changes to departmental transport arrangements have to date been implemented following the receipt of the Green Transport Plan. [36652]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions circulated to all Departments in September last year a "Guide to Green Transport Plans". However, this Department has no vehicle fleet management responsibilities. Nor does it make significant use of private vehicles for official purposes.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Hospitality
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list planned expenditure on hospitality for April and May, indicating the date, location and purpose of each event. [35116]

  Mrs. Beckett
  There are a variety of events planned for April and May, involving DTI Ministerial hospitality. These include a number of receptions and dinners associated with the promotion of the Powerhouse UK exhibition and ASEM II, as well as events covering differing industrial sectors and policy areas. It is not, however, possible to provide a comprehensive estimate for the total expenditure on Ministerial hospitality as the majority of events and meeting will not be finalised until nearer the time.

  Foreign Investors
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade in what instances it is(a) permissible and (b) her policy for (i) the Government and (ii) local authorities to discriminate against a foreign investor. [35618]

  Mrs. Roche
  The UK has an open and liberal economy and welcomes foreign investment. However we reserve the right to discriminate on the grounds of the nationality of an investor in the limited circumstances where permitted by law and our treaty commitments, including in sectors such as defence, broadcasting, fishing, marine and air transport, and financial services. Discrimination on the grounds of the nationality of investors is not a factor in local authority decision-making.

  EU Structural Funds
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate she has made of the cost to the United Kingdom of the present proposals for reforming EU structural funds. [35327]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 24 March 1998]Draft regulations for reform of the EU Structural Funds were published by the Commission on 18 March. It is not possible at this early state to make detailed estimates of the financial consequences of the Commission's proposals for UK receipts from the Structural Funds, as the Commission has not yet published its plans for per capita receipts in difference regions and Member States under the various Objectives and the other measures it is proposing.

  Severn Barrage
  Mr. Prior
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment her Department has made of the feasibility of the Severn Barrage scheme; and in what ways her Department plans to support its development. [36600]

  Mr. Battle
  Overall assessments summarising work across all technologies, including the prospects for tidal power technology and for the Severn Barrage, were last published in 1994 as Energy Technology Support Unit (ETSU) report R-82, "An Assessment of Renewable Energy for the UK" and Energy Paper 62, entitled "New and Renewable Energy Technology: Future Prospects for the UK", copies of which are in the Library of the House.

  This Government propose to undertake a new and strong drive to develop renewable energy sources. DTI Ministers are engaged in reviewing policy, including considerations of what would be necessary and practicable to achieve 10% of UK electricity needs from renewables by the year 2010 and how renewables can make an effective contribution to meeting requirements for future greenhouse gas reduction commitments. Tidal power technology is being considered in that review, the outcome of which will be announced later this year. It is expected that a new overall assessment of the technologies will be published later this year.

  Office of Manpower Economics
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of Office of Manpower Economics staff are based in London; what are the total(a) running and (b) salary costs of this body; and what is the total Government financial assistance provided. [36233]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The Office of Manpower Economics (OME), which provides the secretariat for the independent Pay Review Bodies, has 37.9 whole-time equivalent staff, all of whom are based in London. The running costs budget for the OME in 1997–98 is £1.581 million, which includes salary costs of £1.357 million. Total government funding for OME in 1997–98 is £2.85 million, including £1.27 million for research commissioned by the Pay Review Bodies.

MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio how many jobs the construction of the Millennium Dome has created to date; and how many jobs it will create when open. [31971]

  Mr. Mandelson
  As at the beginning of March 1998, 1,073 people have been employed on the construction of the Millennium Dome.

  When the Millennium Experience is open and fully operational the New Millennium Experience Company forecast that it will create about 2,000 new full and part time jobs.

  An independent report commissioned by the London Borough of Greenwich has estimated that a further 3,000 jobs relating to the Dome will be generated.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio when he plans to answer the question tabled by the hon. Member for North Shropshire on 25 February 1998 relating to the number of contracts signed for the Millennium Dome. [36607]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The question has been answered today.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio how many contracts have been signed relating to the building of the Millennium Dome. [32029]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 2 March 1998]I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 26 March 1998,Official Report, column 248.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Sixth Form Colleges
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list those education authorities which provide sixth form education primarily through sixth form colleges. [33997]
  322
  Dr. Howells
  The following list shows those local education authority areas where, in 1995/96, there were more full-time students in their first two years of post-compulsory education in sixth form colleges than in either state schools or other further education:

  Croydon

  Manchester

  Salford

  Solihull

  Stockport

  Tameside

  Waltham Forest.

  In addition, there were almost as many such students in sixth-form colleges (46 per cent.) in the former area of Hampshire LEA. Within that authority in 1995/96, it is estimated that over 60 per cent. of such students in the area of what is now the City of Southampton Council were in sixth-form colleges, while about 30 per cent. were in other further education.

  Greenwich Judgment
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to legislate to reverse the Greenwich judgment. [34120]

  Mr. Byers
  We have no plans to legislate to reverse the Greenwich Judgment. The judgment opened up greater opportunities for parents by ensuring that the exercise of choice should not be artificially constrained by the fact of residing on one or other side of a LEA boundary. Under the new admission framework, set out in the School Standards and Framework Bill, we envisage admission authorities working closely with those in neighbouring LEA areas in the interest of all parents.

  Free School Meals
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the secondary schools with up to 5 per cent. eligible for free school meals at(a) Key Stage 3 and (b) Key Stage 4. [34166]

  Mr. Byers
  Information on school meals for individual schools is not published centrally.

  Ofsted
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proposals he has to review the work of Ofsted. [35059]

  Mr. Byers
  We are working with Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools to improve the quality, consistency and value for money of the school inspection system. Independent inspection has a crucial role to play in raising standards and we shall continue to discuss with OFSTED the vital part it plays.

  Student Transport
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was(a) the total cost of home to college transport to local authorities in England and Wales for 16 years plus students in the year 1995–96 and (b) the cost of home to college transport to Essex County Council for 16 years plus students in the year 1995–96. [35242]
  323
  Mr. Byers
  LEA expenditure in England on home to college transport was £36.9 million in 1995–96. The corresponding figure for Essex Local Education Authority was £3.1 million. These figures do not take account of parental contributions of £2.8 million and zero for England and for Essex respectively. The funding of home to college transport in Wales is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Bengali
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to ensure the continuation of A level examinations in Bengali; and if he will make a statement. [35350]

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he is taking to preserve Bengali as a GCE A Level subject. [35924]

  Dr. Howells
  The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) and the GCE Awarding Bodies agreed new cost-effective arrangements for safeguarding the

  1997 Key Stage 2 Reading Assessment Test Results

  percentage of eligible pupils

  Boys

  Level 3 and above

  Level 4 and above

  Level 5 and above

  Absent

  Average level

  LEA

  City of London

  88

  75

  31

  0

  3.7

  Camden

  85

  60

  19

  2

  3.4

  Greenwich

  80

  50

  10

  3

  3.0

  Hackney

  78

  49

  10

  3

  2.9

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  83

  58

  16

  2

  3.2

  Islington

  80

  56

  15

  3

  3.1

  Kensington and Chelsea

  87

  67

  17

  1

  3.4

  Lambeth

  81

  54

  11

  2

  3.1

  Lewisham

  81

  54

  14

  3

  3.1

  Southwark

  79

  49

  9

  2

  2.9

  Tower Hamlets

  81

  47

  10

  1

  3.0

  Wandsworth

  83

  57

  15

  3

  3.2

  City of Westminster

  84

  61

  18

  2

  3.3

  Barking and Dagenham

  83

  52

  10

  3

  3.1

  Barnet

  89

  68

  22

  1

  3.6

  Bexley

  91

  65

  16

  3

  3.5

  Brent

  85

  58

  14

  1

  3.3

  Bromley

  93

  75

  26

  1

  3.8

  Croydon

  86

  62

  15

  2

  3.4

  Ealing

  86

  59

  15

  1

  3.3

  Enfield

  85

  60

  15

  3

  3.3

  Haringey

  80

  52

  12

  2

  3.0

  Harrow

  91

  70

  20

  2

  3.6

  Havering

  90

  70

  17

  1

  3.6

  Hillingdon

  88

  65

  16

  3

  3.4

  Hounslow

  83

  57

  14

  1

  3.2

  Kingston upon Thames

  89

  72

  24

  1

  3.6

  Merton

  82

  58

  16

  2

  3.2

  Newham

  78

  46

  10

  2

  2.9

  Redbridge

  87

  63

  16

  2

  3.4

  Richmond upon Thames

  93

  76

  29

  2

  3.8

  Sutton

  91

  71

  20

  2

  3.6

  Waltham Forest

  81

  54

  13

  2

  3.1

  Birmingham

  82

  55

  13

  3

  3.1

  Coventry

  83

  59

  12

  2

  3.2

  Dudley

  85

  58

  12

  2

  3.2

  Sandwell

  82

  50

  8

  3

  3.0

  Solihull

  91

  69

  21

  1

  3.6

  Walsall

  82

  55

  12

  2

  3.2

  Wolverhampton

  84

  58

  12

  3

  3.2

  Knowsley

  84

  56

  10

  2

  3.2

  Liverpool

  83

  56

  13

  3

  3.2

  324
  provision of a range of small entry subjects at A level, including Bengali, on 23 March. I understand that these arrangements will ensure that qualifications presently available will continue to be offered without interruption.

  Standard Assessment Tests
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what percentage of 11 year old(a) male, (b) female and (c) male and female pupils in maintained schools in each local education authority attained (i) Level 3 or better, (ii) Level 4 or better and (iii) Level 5 or better, in the 1997 Key Stage 2 tests in the (1) writing, (2) reading and (3) combined test for English; and what was the average level per pupil;
  [35353]

  (2) for each local education authority what percentage of 11-year-old pupils in maintained schools were entered for the 1997 Key Stage 2 SAT tests in (a) writing, (b) reading and (c) both for English but were absent. [35354]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The information requested is shown in the tables.
  325

  1997 Key Stage 2 Reading Assessment Test Results

  percentage of eligible pupils

  Boys

  Level 3 and above

  Level 4 and above

  Level5 and above

  Absent

  Average level

  St. Helens

  88

  65

  15

  2

  3.4

  Sefton

  91

  72

  22

  2

  3.7

  Wirral

  87

  65

  18

  3

  3.5

  Bolton

  88

  62

  17

  2

  3,4

  Bury

  91

  71

  18

  1

  3.6

  Manchester

  80

  53

  11

  4

  3.0

  Oldham

  83

  54

  12

  2

  3.2

  Rochdale

  83

  60

  12

  2

  3.2

  Salford

  86

  60

  15

  3

  3.3

  Stockport

  89

  69

  19

  2

  3.5

  Tameside

  84

  56

  11

  3

  3.2

  Trafford

  88

  66

  2

  3

  3.5

  Wigan

  88

  64

  16

  2

  3.4

  Barnsley

  81

  53

  11

  5

  3.1

  Doncaster

  84

  58

  14

  2

  3.2

  Rotherham

  82

  54

  10

  3

  3.1

  Sheffield

  81

  54

  14

  3

  3.1

  Bradford

  79

  53

  12

  3

  3.0

  Calderdale

  82

  58

  14

  3

  3.2

  Kirklees

  85

  57

  12

  3

  3.2

  Leeds

  85

  63

  16

  3

  3.3

  Wakefield

  84

  57

  14

  3

  3.2

  Gateshead

  83

  58

  13

  3

  3.2

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  81

  52

  11

  4

  3.1

  North Tyneside

  88

  63

  16

  3

  3.4

  South Tyneside

  87

  59

  13

  2

  3.3

  Sunderland

  85

  58

  13

  2

  3.2

  Isles of Scilly

  94

  65

  18

  0

  3.6

  Bath and North East Somerset

  88

  70

  24

  2

  3.6

  City of Bristol

  81

  54

  13

  3

  3.1

  North Somerset

  90

  70

  20

  3

  3.6

  South Gloucestershire

  87

  65

  17

  3

  3.4

  Hartlepool

  83

  59

  15

  2

  3.2

  Middlesbrough

  83

  56

  14

  3

  3.2

  Redcar and Cleveland

  87

  62

  16

  3

  3.4

  Stockton on Tees

  83

  61

  15

  3

  3.3

  City of Kingston-upon-Hull

  77

  48

  9

  3

  2.9

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  89

  66

  17

  2

  3.5

  North East Lincolnshire

  83

  56

  11

  3

  3.1

  North Lincolnshire

  84

  60

  14

  2

  3.3

  North Yorkshire

  91

  71

  21

  3

  3.6

  City of York

  89

  69

  17

  2

  3.5

  Bedfordshire

  87

  66

  16

  2

  3.4

  Luton

  85

  57

  13

  2

  3.2

  Buckinghamshire

  90

  73

  28

  2

  3.7

  Milton Keynes

  82

  59

  15

  4

  3.2

  Derbyshire

  88

  64

  17

  2

  3.4

  Derby City

  85

  58

  13

  2

  3.3

  Dorset

  89

  69

  19

  2

  3.6

  Poole

  88

  66

  16

  3

  3.5

  Bournemouth

  89

  66

  20

  4

  3.5

  Durham

  86

  62

  16

  2

  3.4

  Darlington

  84

  65

  15

  3

  3.3

  East Sussex

  86

  64

  17

  3

  3.4

  Brighton and Hove

  84

  55

  12

  3

  3.2

  Hampshire

  90

  69

  21

  2

  3.6

  Portsmouth

  84

  58

  14

  3

  3.2

  Southampton

  83

  53

  12

  3

  3.2

  Leicestershire

  88

  65

  16

  2

  3.5

  Leicester City

  80

  53

  10

  2

  3.0

  Rutland

  92

  79

  22

  1

  3.8

  Staffordshire

  87

  66

  17

  2

  3.4

  Stoke-on-Trent

  84

  56

  11

  2

  3.2

  Wiltshire

  90

  66

  19

  1

  3.5

  Swindon

  86

  63

  17

  2

  3.4

  Berkshire

  88

  66

  19

  2

  3.5

  Cambridgeshire

  87

  65

  19

  2

  3.5

  Cheshire

  88

  67

  19

  2

  3.5

  Cornwall

  87

  67

  18

  2

  3.5

  326

  327

  1997 Key Stage 2 Reading Assessment Test Results

  percentage of eligible pupils

  Boys

  Level 3 and above

  Level 4 and above

  Level 5 and above

  Absent

  Average level

  Cumbria

  88

  66

  17

  3

  3.5

  Devon

  87

  63

  15

  3

  3.4

  Essex

  86

  63

  16

  3

  3.4

  Gloucestershire

  90

  69

  19

  2

  3.6

  Hereford and Worcester

  87

  66

  18

  2

  3.5

  Hertfordshire

  90

  71

  22

  2

  3.6

  Isle of Wight

  87

  61

  14

  3

  3.4

  Kent

  86

  64

  17

  3

  3.4

  Lancashire

  87

  63

  16

  3

  3.4

  Lincolnshire

  87

  67

  18

  3

  3.5

  Norfolk

  86

  63

  15

  3

  3.4

  Northamptonshire

  89

  66

  17

  2

  3.5

  Northumberland

  86

  63

  16

  4

  3.4

  Nottinghamshire

  82

  57

  14

  4

  3.2

  Oxfordshire

  86

  66

  21

  2

  3.5

  Shropshire

  85

  61

  15

  2

  3.3

  Somerset

  88

  66

  18

  3

  3.5

  Suffolk

  88

  66

  18

  2

  3.5

  Surrey

  92

  74

  24

  1

  3.7

  Warwickshire

  87

  66

  18

  2

  3.4

  West Sussex

  88

  65

  18

  2

  3.5

  National

  89

  62

  16

  2

  3.4

  1997 Key Stage 2 Reading Assessment Test Results

  percentage of eligible pupils

  Girls

  Level 3 and above

  Level 4 and above

  Level 5 and above

  Absent

  Average level

  LEA

  City of London

  100

  93

  29

  0

  4.2

  Camden

  91

  68

  24

  2

  3.6

  Greenwich

  86

  60

  13

  2

  3.3

  Hackney

  83

  55

  12

  2

  3.1

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  91

  70

  25

  2

  3.7

  Islington

  88

  66

  21

  1

  3.5

  Kensington and Chelsea

  94

  75

  25

  1

  3.8

  Lambeth

  84

  60

  16

  3

  3.3

  Lewisham

  89

  65

  18

  2

  3.5

  Southwark

  89

  62

  15

  1

  3.4

  Tower Hamlets

  85

  54

  12

  2

  3.2

  Wandsworth

  88

  68

  21

  2

  3.5

  City of Westminster

  92

  73

  24

  1

  3.7

  Barking and Dagenham

  89

  61

  15

  2

  3.4

  Barnet

  93

  76

  24

  2

  3.8

  Bexley

  94

  75

  22

  3

  3.8

  Brent

  89

  68

  21

  1

  3.6

  Bromley

  94

  79

  32

  2

  3.9

  Croydon

  92

  71

  22

  1

  3.7

  Ealing

  91

  68

  20

  1

  3.6

  Enfield

  89

  67

  18

  3

  3.5

  Haringey

  86

  62

  17

  3

  3.4

  Harrow

  92

  75

  25

  2

  3.8

  Havering

  95

  77

  24

  1

  3.8

  Hillingdon

  92

  74

  23

  2

  3.7

  Hounslow

  91

  67

  18

  1

  3.6

  Kingston upon Thames

  93

  79

  30

  2

  3.9

  Merton

  90

  67

  20

  2

  3.6

  Newham

  84

  55

  12

  2

  3.2

  Redbridge

  91

  72

  22

  2

  3.7

  Richmond upon Thames

  96

  80

  37

  1

  4.0

  Sutton

  94

  77

  27

  3

  3.8

  Waltham Forest

  88

  66

  19

  1

  3.5

  Birmingham

  86

  62

  17

  3

  3.4

  Coventry

  91

  68

  18

  2

  3.6

  Dudley

  90

  70

  21

  2

  3.6

  Sandwell

  87

  60

  13

  2

  3.3

  Solihull

  93

  78

  28

  2

  3.9

  Walsall

  88

  65

  18

  2

  3.5

  328 329

  1997 Key Stage 2 Reading Assessment Test Results

  percentage of eligible pupils

  Girls

  Level 3 and above

  Level 4 and above

  Level 5 and above

  Absent

  Average level

  Wolverhampton

  90

  66

  17

  2

  3.5

  Knowsley

  89

  63

  13

  2

  3.5

  Liverpool

  88

  64

  18

  3

  3.5

  St. Helens

  92

  72

  20

  3

  3.7

  Sefton

  95

  79

  27

  2

  3.9

  Wirral

  92

  71

  24

  3

  3.7

  Bolton

  93

  71

  20

  2

  3.7

  Bury

  93

  78

  27

  1

  3.9

  Manchester

  87

  60

  15

  3

  3.4

  Oldham

  90

  65

  16

  2

  3.5

  Rochdale

  88

  65

  18

  2

  3.5

  Salford

  92

  70

  19

  3

  3.6

  Stockport

  93

  76

  25

  1

  3.8

  Tameside

  89

  65

  15

  3

  3.5

  Trafford

  92

  74

  27

  3

  3.8

  Wigan

  92

  72

  19

  2

  3.7

  Barnsley

  87

  63

  15

  4

  3.4

  Doncaster

  88

  66

  18

  3

  3.5

  Rotherham

  88

  66

  15

  4

  3.4

  Sheffield

  86

  63

  17

  3

  3.4

  Bradford

  86

  62

  17

  2

  3.4

  Calderdale

  90

  70

  20

  2

  3.6

  Kirklees

  90

  66

  18

  2

  3.5

  Leeds

  91

  72

  22

  2

  3.7

  Wakefield

  90

  68

  17

  3

  3.6

  Gateshead

  90

  69

  20

  2

  3.6

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  85

  61

  14

  3

  3.3

  North Tyneside

  91

  69

  21

  3

  3.6

  South Tyneside

  92

  72

  19

  2

  3.7

  Sunderland

  90

  68

  20

  2

  3.6

  Isles of Scilly

  100

  91

  55

  0

  4.5

  Bath and North East Somerset

  94

  78

  29

  2

  3.9

  City of Bristol

  87

  63

  17

  3

  3.4

  North Somerset

  94

  79

  29

  2

  3.9

  South Gloucestershire

  94

  78

  26

  2

  3.9

  Hartlepool

  92

  70

  17

  2

  3.6

  Middlesbrough

  87

  63

  19

  3

  3.4

  Redcar and Cleveland

  90

  71

  22

  2

  3.6

  Stockton on Tees

  90

  69

  20

  2

  3.6

  City of Kingston-upon-Hull

  85

  59

  13

  2

  3.3

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  93

  76

  23

  2

  3.8

  North East Lincolnshire

  89

  65

  16

  3

  3.5

  North Lincolnshire

  91

  72

  20

  2

  3.6

  North Yorkshire

  94

  80

  29

  2

  3.9

  City of York

  94

  75

  26

  1

  3.8

  Bedfordshire

  91

  73

  23

  2

  3.7

  Luton

  90

  63

  16

  2

  3.5

  Buckinghamshire

  94

  80

  37

  2

  4

  Milton Keynes

  89

  67

  21

  3

  3.5

  Derbyshire

  92

  72

  23

  3

  3.7

  Derby City

  90

  70

  21

  3

  3.6

  Dorset

  93

  78

  27

  3

  3.8

  Poole

  91

  73

  23

  3

  3.7

  Bournemouth

  92

  77

  24

  4

  3.8

  Durham

  91

  71

  21

  2

  3.6

  Darlington

  90

  72

  25

  3

  3.7

  East Sussex

  92

  73

  23

  3

  3.7

  Brighton and Hove

  87

  65

  17

  3

  3.4

  Hampshire

  94

  78

  28

  1

  3.9

  Portsmouth

  89

  65

  17

  2

  3.5

  Southampton

  89

  62

  15

  3

  3.4

  Leicestershire

  93

  75

  24

  2

  3.8

  Leicester City

  85

  60

  14

  2

  3.3

  Rutland

  95

  81

  35

  1

  4.0

  Staffordshire

  92

  74

  23

  2

  3.7

  Stoke-on-Trent

  89

  64

  17

  2

  3.5

  Wiltshire

  93

  78

  27

  2

  3.9

  Swindon

  91

  71

  23

  2

  3.7

  Berkshire

  92

  76

  27

  2.0

  3.8

  330 331

  1997 Key Stage 2 Reading Assessment Test Results

  percentage of eligible pupils

  Girls

  Level 3 and above

  Level 4 and above

  Level 5 and above

  Absent

  Average level

  Cambridgeshire

  92

  73

  25

  2

  3.7

  Cheshire

  93

  75

  24

  2

  3,8

  Cornwall

  93

  77

  26

  2

  3.9

  Cumbria

  93

  74

  25

  2

  3.8

  Devon

  91

  72

  22

  3

  3.6

  Essex

  92

  72

  23

  2

  3.7

  Gloucestershire

  93

  76

  26

  2

  3.8

  Hereford and Worcester

  91

  73

  25

  3

  3.7

  Hertfordshire

  93

  78

  29

  1

  3.9

  Isle of Wight

  93

  73

  20

  1

  3.7

  Kent

  91

  72

  21

  3

  3.7

  Lancashire

  92

  72

  23

  2

  3.7

  Lincolnshire

  91

  74

  24

  4

  3.7

  Norfolk

  90

  71

  21

  3

  3.6

  Northamptonshire

  93

  74

  24

  2

  3.8

  Northumberland

  92

  74

  23

  3

  3.7

  Nottinghamshire

  87

  66

  19

  4

  3.5

  Oxfordshire

  92

  75

  28

  2

  3.8

  Shropshire

  90

  71

  21

  3

  3.6

  Somerset

  93

  76

  26

  2

  3.8

  Suffolk

  92

  73

  24

  2

  3.7

  Surrey

  94

  79

  31

  1

  3.9

  Warwickshire

  91

  73

  23

  2

  3.7

  West Sussex

  93

  75

  25

  2

  3.8

  National

  89

  71

  22

  2

  3.7

  1997 Key Stage 2 Reading Assessment Test Results

  percentage of eligible pupils

  Pupils

  Level 3 and above

  Level 4 and above

  Level 5 and above

  Absent

  Average level

  LEA

  City of London

  93

  83

  30

  0

  3.9

  Camden

  88

  64

  22

  2

  3.5

  Greenwich

  83

  55

  12

  2

  3.2

  Hackney

  80

  52

  11

  2

  3.0

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  87

  64

  20

  2

  3.5

  Islington

  84

  61

  18

  2

  3.3

  Kensington and Chelsea

  90

  71

  21

  1

  3.6

  Lambeth

  83

  57

  14

  3

  3.2

  Lewisham

  85

  60

  16

  2

  3.3

  Southwark

  84

  56

  12

  1

  3.2

  Tower Hamlets

  82

  51

  11

  2

  3.1

  Wandsworth

  86

  62

  18

  2

  3.4

  City of Westminster

  88

  67

  21

  2

  3.5

  Barking and Dagenham

  86

  56

  12

  3

  3.3

  Barnet

  91

  72

  23

  1

  3.7

  Bexley

  93

  70

  19

  3

  3.7

  Brent

  87

  63

  17

  1

  3.4

  Bromley

  94

  77

  29

  2

  3.9

  Croydon

  89

  66

  18

  2

  3.5

  Ealing

  88

  63

  17

  1

  3.4

  Enfield

  87

  64

  17

  3

  3.4

  Haringey

  83

  57

  14

  2

  3.2

  Harrow

  92

  72

  22

  2

  3.7

  Havering

  92

  73

  20

  1

  3.7

  Hillingdon

  90

  69

  19

  2

  3.6

  Hounslow

  87

  62

  16

  1

  3.4

  Kingston upon Thames

  91

  75

  27

  1

  3.7

  Merton

  86

  63

  18

  2

  3.4

  Newham

  81

  50

  11

  2

  3.0

  Redbridge

  89

  67

  19

  2

  3.5

  Richmond upon Thames

  94

  78

  33

  1

  3.9

  Sutton

  92

  74

  24

  2

  3.7

  Waltham Forest

  85

  60

  16

  2

  3.3

  Birmingham

  84

  58

  15

  3

  3.3

  332 333

  1997 Key Stage 2 Reading Assessment Test Results

  percentage of eligible pupils

  Pupils

  Level 3 and above

  Level 4 and above

  Level 5 and above

  Absent

  Average level

  Coventry

  87

  64

  15

  2

  3.4

  Dudley

  87

  64

  16

  2

  3.4

  Sandwell

  84

  55

  11

  3

  3.2

  Solihull

  92

  73

  25

  1

  3.7

  Walsall

  85

  60

  15

  2

  3.3

  Wolverhampton

  87

  62

  15

  2

  3.4

  Knowsley

  86

  60

  12

  2

  3.3

  Liverpool

  85

  60

  15

  3

  3.3

  St. Helens

  90

  68

  17

  2

  3.5

  Sefton

  93

  75

  25

  2

  3.8

  Wirral

  90

  68

  21

  3

  3.6

  Bolton

  90

  67

  18

  2

  3.6

  Bury

  92

  75

  22

  1

  3.7

  Manchester

  83

  56

  13

  3

  3.2

  Oldham

  87

  60

  14

  2

  3.3

  Rochdale

  86

  63

  15

  2

  3.3

  Salford

  89

  64

  17

  3

  3.5

  Stockport

  91

  72

  22

  2

  3.7

  Tameside

  86

  60

  13

  3

  3.3

  Trafford

  90

  70

  24

  3

  3.6

  Wigan

  90

  68

  18

  2

  3.6

  Barns ley

  84

  58

  13

  4

  3.2

  Doncaster

  86

  62

  16

  3

  3.4

  Rotherham

  85

  60

  12

  3

  3.3

  Sheffield

  84

  58

  15

  3

  3.2

  Bradford

  83

  57

  15

  3

  3.2

  Calderdale

  86

  64

  17

  3

  3.4

  Kirklees

  87

  61

  15

  2

  3.4

  Leeds

  88

  67

  19

  2

  3.5

  Wakefield

  87

  62

  15

  3

  3.4

  Gateshead

  87

  64

  16

  3

  3.4

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  83

  56

  13

  4

  3.2

  North Tyneside

  90

  66

  18

  3

  3.5

  South Tyneside

  89

  65

  16

  2

  3.5

  Sunderland

  87

  63

  16

  2

  3.4

  Isles of Scilly

  96

  75

  32

  0

  4.0

  Bath and North East Somerset

  91

  74

  27

  2

  3.7

  City of Bristol

  84

  58

  15

  3

  3.3

  North Somerset

  92

  74

  24

  2

  3.7

  South Gloucestershire

  91

  72

  21

  3

  3.6

  Hartlepool

  87

  64

  16

  2

  3.4

  Middlesbrough

  85

  59

  16

  3

  3.3

  Redcar and Cleveland

  89

  66

  19

  2

  3.5

  Stockton on Tees

  87

  65

  17

  2

  3.4

  City of Kingston-upon-Hull

  81

  53

  11

  3

  3.1

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  91

  71

  20

  2

  3.6

  North East Lincolnshire

  86

  60

  13

  3

  3.3

  North Lincolnshire

  87

  66

  17

  2

  3.4

  North Yorkshire

  92

  75

  25

  2

  3.8

  City of York

  92

  72

  21

  2

  3.7

  Bedfordshire

  89

  69

  19

  2

  3.6

  Luton

  87

  60

  15

  2

  3.4

  Buckinghamshire

  92

  76

  32

  2

  3.8

  Milton Keynes

  85

  63

  18

  3

  3.4

  Derbyshire

  90

  68

  20

  2

  3.6

  Derby City

  87

  64

  17

  2

  3.4

  Dorset

  91

  74

  23

  2

  3.7

  Poole

  89

  69

  19

  3

  3.6

  Bournemouth

  90

  72

  22

  4

  3.6

  Durham

  88

  66

  18

  2

  3.5

  Darlington

  87

  68

  20

  3

  3.5

  East Sussex

  89

  68

  20

  3

  3.5

  Brighton and Hove

  86

  60

  14

  3

  3.3

  Hampshire

  92

  73

  24

  2

  3.7

  Portsmouth

  87

  61

  16

  3

  3.4

  Southampton

  86

  58

  13

  3

  3.3

  Leicestershire

  90

  70

  20

  2

  3.6

  Leicester City

  83

  57

  12

  2

  3.2

  Rutland

  94

  80

  29

  1

  3.9

  334 335

  1997 Key Stage 2 Reading Assessment Test Results

  percentage of eligible pupils

  Pupils

  Level 3 and above

  Level 4 and above

  Level 5 and above

  Absent

  Average level

  Staffordshire

  90

  70

  20

  2

  3.6

  Stoke-on-Trent

  86

  60

  14

  2

  3.3

  Wiltshire

  92

  72

  23

  2

  3,7

  Swindon

  88

  67

  20

  2

  3.5

  Berkshire

  90

  71

  23

  2

  3.6

  Cambridgeshire

  90

  69

  22

  2

  3.6

  Cheshire

  90

  71

  22

  2

  3.6

  Cornwall

  90

  72

  22

  2

  3.6

  Cumbria

  91

  70

  21

  2

  3.6

  Devon

  89

  67

  18

  3

  3.5

  Essex

  89

  67

  19

  2

  3.5

  Gloucestershire

  91

  72

  23

  2

  3.7

  Hereford and Worcester

  89

  69

  21

  3

  3.6

  Hertfordshire

  92

  74

  25

  2

  3.7

  Isle of Wight

  90

  67

  17

  2

  3.5

  Kent

  88

  68

  19

  3

  3.5

  Lancashire

  89

  68

  19

  3

  3.5

  Lincolnshire

  89

  70

  21

  3

  3.6

  Norfolk

  88

  67

  18

  3

  3.5

  Northamptonshire

  91

  69

  20

  2

  3.6

  Northumberland

  89

  68

  19

  3

  3.5

  Nottinghamshire

  85

  61

  16

  4

  3.3

  Oxfordshire

  89

  71

  24

  2

  3.6

  Shropshire

  87

  66

  18

  3

  3.5

  Somerset

  90

  71

  22

  2

  3.6

  Suffolk

  90

  70

  21

  2

  3.6

  Surrey

  93

  77

  27

  1

  3.8

  Warwickshire

  89

  69

  21

  2

  3.6

  West Sussex

  90

  70

  22

  2

  3.6

  National

  89

  67

  19

  2

  3.5

  School Inspections
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many primary schools with 11 year old pupils were inspected by OFSTED in the school year 1996–97; what percentages of each grade on OFSTED's scale 1 to 7 were awarded by inspectors in each of the 12 curriculum subjects; and what was the average grade awarded (i) for each of the 12 curriculum subjects and (ii) for all subjects together in these schools. [35355]

  Mr. Byers
  This is a matter for HM Chief Inspector of Schools. I have asked him to write to the hon. Member and to place a copy of his letter in the Library.

  Student Fees
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the annual cost of administering his proposed student fees regime. [35574]

  Dr. Howells
  There will be no extra costs to LEAs in paying the public contribution to tuition fees after income assessment. Our plans for 1998–99 assume that the costs to universities and colleges of collecting private fee contributions (and of any default) will be 5 per cent. of the income collected.

  Science Examinations
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, in each of the five years before and each year since the introduction of the National 336
  Curriculum, how many girls and how many boys have taken at least one science subject at (a) GCSE and (b) A-level. [35371]

  Dr. Howells
  The information requested in respect of GCSE and GCE A level science is as follows:

  (000s)

  Number of pupils taking GCSE Science

  Number of students taking GCE A Level Science

  Boys

  Girls

  Total

  Boys

  Girls

  Total

  1986

  305

  276

  581

  41

  24

  65

  1987

  303

  277

  581

  40

  24

  64

  1988

  269

  249

  518

  39

  23

  62

  1989

  266

  258

  524

  36

  24

  60

  1990

  250

  247

  496

  37

  26

  63

  1991

  245

  240

  485

  35

  24

  59

  1992

  240

  235

  475

  32

  23

  56

  1993

  236

  229

  465

  27

  19

  46

  1994

  244

  238

  482

  26

  19

  46

  1995

  265

  258

  523

  27

  20

  47

  1996

  271

  266

  537

  27

  20

  47

  1997

  268

  264

  532

  29

  23

  51

  Note:

  The National Curriculum was introduced in 1991 for Key Stage 1 and in 1992 for Key Stage 3.

  European Social Fund
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the payment priority given to voluntary
  337
  sector organisations running European Social Fund projects under (a) Objective 1, (b) Objective 2 and (c) Objective 3. [35393]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  New funding arrangements introduced this year will enable this Department to pay European Social Fund (ESF) claims without waiting for funds from the European Commission. This arrangement will apply to ESF claims dating from 1997 to the second payment for 1999 and should lead to speedier payments for all sectors involved. The claims will have to be checked first and must be accurate and have appropriate supportive documentation. Accurate claims submitted by the voluntary sector will be given priority under all ESF programmes and paid first.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures he proposes in order to speed up European Social Fund payments to voluntary sector organisations running Objective 3 projects. [35395]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Payments for accurate claims dating from 1997 to the second payment in 1999 will be made without waiting for funding to arrive from the European Commission. This arrangement should lead to speedier payments for all sectors. Claims received from the voluntary sector will be checked on a daily basis and once they are accurate will be given priority for processing.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the procedures the promoters of an approved ESF Objective 3 project run by a voluntary sector organisation must undertake before payment can be made by his Department. [35396]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Promoters should submit accurate, completed claim forms including the appropriate supportive documentation. Once the claims have been checked and are correct they can be processed for payment. We will not need to wait for funds to arrive from the European Commission before making payments for accurate claims dated from 1997 to the second payment in 1999.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the final claim payment dates for ESF Objective 3 voluntary sector projects for each year since the start of the current programme. [35397]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The current Objective 3 programme started in January 1997 and will finish in December 1999. The deadline for projects to submit their final claims for the 1997 programme to this Department's European Social Fund Unit was 13 March 1998. The Department's ESF Unit has so far received 1,170 of the expected 1,625 final claims.

  The final claims are now being checked on a daily basis. Final claims received from the voluntary sector are given priority for processing. Final claim payments will be paid once they have been checked and are correct and we expect payments to begin sometime in April 1998.

  School Admissions (Sheffield)
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has received on 338
  Sheffield City Council's decisions on secondary school admissions for September 1998; and if he will make a statement. [35532]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We have received several letters recently from local parents and others about secondary school admission arrangements in Sheffield, and in particular about the implications of the recent High Court judgment on the operation of admissions in Rotherham. The Department is discussing the issues raised by the judgment with Sheffield LEA and with other interested parties. We shall consider in the light of those discussions if the existing legislation gives admission authorities sufficient flexibility to respond to local needs and preferences.

  New Deal
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many businesses in each parliamentary constituency have signed up to the New Deal; [35577]

  what measures he will take to ensure a consistent geographical spread of businesses signed up to the New Deal; [35578]

  what steps the Government will take to encourage businesses in areas of high unemployment to sign up for the New Deal. [35587]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Our strategy for marketing New Deal is designed to ensure that every local New Deal partnership, including those in areas of high unemployment, has the job vacancies it requires to meet the needs of its unemployed clients. The measures we are taking to achieve this include requiring local partnerships to cover marketing in their plans, (which have been approved by assessment panels, including private sector members) local marketing guides and toolkits, marketing training and planning support, and local radio and press advertising, as well as the national TV and press campaign. Additional measures for areas of particularly high unemployment include the establishment of employer coalitions by the New Deal Task Force and special workshops on marketing.

  We are making encouraging progress in implementing our marketing strategy, with over 2,300 employer agreements signed across the country, with many more to come as marketing efforts are now underway in all local partnerships. 44 of these agreements are with leading national employers, offering jobs in a range of geographical locations. A breakdown of these figures by constituency is not available.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is his estimate of the(a) number and (b) percentage of persons on the New Deal who will require special attention at the Gateway, the (i) number and (ii) percentage who will require mentoring and the basis on which these estimates are made; from where he expects to recruit the mentors; and what estimate he has made of the amounts individual mentors will be paid and the total cost. [36155]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Every young person who enters the Gateway of the New Deal for 18–24 year olds will receive individually tailored help. In his Budget statement on 17 March 1998,Official Report, columns 1097–112,

  339
  my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced an additional £50 million boost to the help available in the Gateway.

  In each unit of delivery a New Deal mentoring service will seek to recruit and train mentors who can offer the kind of independent, individual support some young people will need as they progress through the New Deal programme. We expect that suitable mentors will be drawn from all sections of local communities. Mentors will be unpaid trained volunteers, but will typically receive expenses under arrangements to be determined locally.

  Each New Deal mentoring service will aim to provide a mentor for those young people identified as most likely to benefit from this extra support. Our planning assumption is that up to 100,000 young people will benefit over the life of this Parliament. On the basis of overall planning assumptions for New Deal, which are consistent with the Government's current unemployment assumptions, that would mean that about 10 per cent. of all Gateway entrants would benefit from New Deal mentoring. Units of delivery will be contracting for mentoring services over the coming months, and accurate estimates of total costs cannot be made in advance of the contracting process and some operational experience of New Deal mentoring. At this stage, our planning assumption is that mentoring might cost up to £40 million during this Parliament.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assistance those unemployed and aged over 25 years of age who are partners of unemployed people will receive through the New Deal; and if he will make a statement. [36503]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  We announced in the Budget that the Government have set aside £60 million from the Windfall Tax Receipts to ensure that partners of the unemployed who are aged over 25 and are themselves out of work will have the option to receive the help they need to get back to work. Details of the New Deal for Partners and the type of assistance which partners over 25 might receive through this New Deal will be set out in due course.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the timescale for expenditure of the extra £50 million allocated to the Gateway period of the New Deal for the young unemployed in the Budget; and if he will make a statement. [36504]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Like all other allocations from the windfall tax to the New Deal for 18–24 year olds, the extra £50 million for the Gateway will help young people over the life of this Parliament.

  The extra £50 million will fund a New Deal mentoring service, offering the support of trained volunteer mentors to up to 100,000 young people over the life of this Parliament. The extra money will also fund a significant enhancement of Gateway help to some of the more disadvantaged young people. There will be short basic skills courses available to every young person who could benefit; and we will also increase access to help from specialist agencies during the Gateway, to tackle such
  340
  problems as homelessness, drug or alcohol dependency, or debt, at the same time as the young people are working to improve their employment prospects.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment by what criteria an unemployed individual aged over 25 years who is a partner of an unemployed person and is not in receipt of jobseeker's allowance will qualify for the New Deal; and if he will make a statement. [36506]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  We announced in the Budget that the Government have set aside £60 million from the Windfall Tax Receipts to ensure that partners of the unemployed who are aged over 25 and are themselves out of work will have the option to receive the help they need to get back to work. Details of the New Deal for Partners and the criteria by which partners will be eligible for help will be set out in due course.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many individuals have given a commitment to provide mentoring support to young people through the New Deal to date; and if he will make a statement. [36507]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  We have asked local New Deal partnerships to develop their mentoring services during 1998 and to make sure they are fully operational by December at the latest. Some partnerships have already made significant progress in planning and contracting for mentoring and should have provision in place shortly after the New Deal's national launch on 6 April. The first task for providers will be to recruit and train suitable volunteer mentors from all sections of the local community to offer independent, individual support to those young people entering the New Deal Gateway who are most likely to benefit from this extra help. Information about the numbers of New Deal mentors will start to be collected once mentoring services are in place.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assistance towards the needs of those aged over 50 years will be available through the New Deal; and if he will make a statement. [36508]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Two extensions of the New Deal over the coming year will include people aged 50 and over. From June, we will introduce the New Deal for all people aged 25 or over who have been unemployed for over 2 years. This will honour our manifesto pledge to introduce a £75 employer subsidy for employers who recruit people from this group. We will also provide new opportunities to train or study full time on JSA. Participants will also be eligible for help from existing provision, which includes training, help towards self-employment, and trial periods with employers. All participants will receive advisory help, to enable them to identify the best route into sustained employment.

  Second, we will introduce, in November, pilots providing up to 70,000 places which will help those unemployed for at least 18 months, and, in some areas, those unemployed for 12 months. We will be consulting on the design of those pilots and, in particular, on the way in which they can best help those aged 50 and over. Our initial thinking is that they should contain key features of the New Deal approach: a gateway period to identify barriers to work; individually tailored provision which

  341
  takes into account the special circumstances of each participant; and follow through support to help people stay in work.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment where the pilot schemes for the extension of the New Deal for those over 25 years of age will be located; and if he will make a statement. [36509]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The locations for the pilots that were announced in the Budget are yet to be decided. We will select areas which provide the best basis for reliable evaluation of the approach.

  Grammar School Students
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the cost of administration of the 11 plus in(a) Kent and (b) the constituency of Sittingbourne and Sheppey. [35609]

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

  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how much money is currently spent on(a) coaches and (b) taxis in transporting (i) 11 to 16 and (ii) 16 to 18 year-olds from Sheppey to grammar schools off the island; [35610]

  how much money is currently spent on (a)coaches and (b)taxis to enable students in Sittingbourne and Faversham to attend the local grammar schools; [35611]

  if he will list grammar schools in England in order of places gained at Oxford and Cambridge for each year from 1987 to 1997; [35614]

  how many students at each grammar school in Sittingbourne left aged 16 years in each year since 1987. [35615]

  Mr. Byers
  This information is not collected centrally.

  GCSE Results
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the GCSE pass rate average for(a) all comprehensive schools and (b) all grammar schools; and if he will make a statement. [35612]

  Dr. Howells
  The information requested in respect of GCSEs is(a) 93.5 per cent. and (b) 99.6 per cent.

  Teachers
  Maria Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what is the projected average age of secondary school teachers in 10 years' time; and what assessment he has made of trends in the average age over the next 10 years; [35629]

  (2) what is the average age of secondary school teachers in England and Wales. [35630]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The average age of full and part-time secondary teachers in 1996 was 42 and it is expected to stay around this age for the next 10 years. We estimate that, following a slight decrease in 1997 and 1998 due to the increase in the numbers of premature retirements, there will be a gradual increase in the average age of secondary teachers over the next 10 years from just below 42 years to just above.
  342
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many teachers in the Congleton constituency(a) applied for and (b) were granted early retirement owing to ill health during 1997. [35633]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  During the calendar year 1997, three teachers, whose last known employment was in a maintained school in the Congleton constituency, were granted early retirement on ill-health grounds. The number of applications for retirement on the grounds of ill-health by constituency cannot be identified centrally.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many teachers voluntarily left the teaching profession before retirement age in the constituency of Congleton during 1997. [35634]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The latest year for which information is available is 1995–96. Provisional data show that, of those recorded as in-service, whether full or part-time, in a maintained school in the Congleton constituency as at 31 March 1995, 24 were out of service one year later, excluding those who retired (on grounds of ill health, age, redundancy or efficiency), died or were barred.

  Undergraduate Studies
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the participation in full-time and sandwich undergraduate study by(a) constituency and (b) socio-economic groups A and E in (i) 1985, (ii) 1990 and (iii) 1995. [35723]

  Dr. Howells
  Data on participation in higher education by parliamentary constituency are not available centrally. The Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) collects the home postcode of higher education students, which would enable individual constituencies to be identified, but at present no such analysis has been carried out.

  The available data on participation by socio-economic group are given in the table:

  Participation in higher education1 by socio-economic group: young full-time undergraduates

  percentage

  Academic year beginning

  Socio-economic group

  1985

  1990

  1995

  A Professional

  n/a

  n/a

  79.4

  B Intermediate

  n/a

  n/a

  45.4

  Cl Skilled Non-Manual'

  n/a

  n/a

  31.2

  A toCl

  35.2

  36.7

  46.6

  C2 Skilled Manual

  n/a

  n/a

  18.3

  D Partly Skilled

  n/a

  n/a

  17.2

  E Unskilled

  n/a

  n/a

  12.5

  C2 toE

  8.3

  10.3

  17.4

  1 Estimates of the numbers of young home initial entrants to full-time and sandwich undergraduate courses in Great Britain, expressed as a proportion of the averaged 18 to 19 year old population.

  Note:

  n/a = not available

  Environmental Task Force
  Mr. Derek Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans there are to increase the participation of the over-25 age group in the Environmental Task Force option of the New Deal. [35909]
  343
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  As we announced in the Budget,17 March 1998,Official Report, columns 1097–112, £100m will be made available from the Windfall Tax to offer up to 70,000 places on pilots which extend the New Deal approach to adults who have been unemployed for 18 months or, in some cases, a year. These pilots will include the opportunity for participants to work on projects of environmental benefit or in the voluntary sector, as well as job-related training, and employment, where appropriate with a £75 a week subsidy for six months, and opportunities for training towards self-employment.

  Greystones School, Sheffield
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has received concerning class sizes at Greystones primary school, Sheffield; and if he will make a statement. [36505]

  Mr. Byers
  None. We have provided Sheffield local education authority with a specific grant of £525,000 to reduce infant class sizes from September 1998. This will benefit an estimated 2,400 pupils.

  School Closures (Kent)
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has in respect of the closure of schools in Kent; and if he will make a statement. [36601]

  Mr. Byers
  None. The planning of school places in Kent is a matter for the Local Education Authority and, in the case of secondary provision, the Funding Agency for Schools. But the Government believe that LEAs should keep the supply of school places under review. I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) on 26 February 1998,Official Report, column 364, in which I said that officials would write to all LEAs and to the FAS asking that they justify continuing to maintain schools with high levels of surplus particularly where performance is poor. But we recognise that authorities will want to take into account any particular local circumstances. Officials have now written to all authorities asking them to address this issue in their annual return to the Department, due by 1 June.

  Green Transport
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what specific changes to departmental transport arrangements have to date been implemented following the receipt of the Green Transport Plan. [36644]

  Dr. Howells
  The Guide to Green Transport Plans was distributed last September by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. A number of developments have been taken forward with the help of the guidance contained in the document. Last year DfEE carried out a survey of staff travel drawing on the advice contained in the Guide. The information obtained from the survey will assist with drawing up the Department's Green Transport Policy document and Green Transport action plans for each of the Department's sites. DfEE's344
  arrangements for providing vehicles for official travel have been reviewed and more stringent conditions introduced. The Department has also given extra emphasis to encouraging staff to cycle to work by supporting National Cycle Week, advertising the availability of loans for purchasing bicycles and providing additional facilities for cyclists at two sites.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on what date he plans to introduce a green commuting plan. [366561

  Dr. Howells
  The Guide to Green Transport Plans distributed last September by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions encouraged Departments to draw up Green Transport Plans tailored to each location. All DfEE's Headquarters sites and buildings will have operational Green Transport Action Plans in place by 31 October 1998 covering both commuting and official travel.

  Cash Limits
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will announce changes to cash limits within his responsibility for 1997–98. [37146]

  Dr. Howells
  I announced on 23 February 1998,Official Report, columns 109–11, that the cash limit for Class IX, Vote 1 Department for Education and Employment: programmes and central services would be increased by £34,653,000 from £9,505,077,000 to £9,539,730,000. The cash limit will now be increased by a further £262,798,000. This is as a result of a virement of £267,200,000 from section B of the Vote, which is non-cash limited, to section A, which is cash limited, offset by a reduction in the cash limit on the Vote of £4,402,000.

  The increase in the cash limit is necessary because, following the ending of demand-led funding in the further education sector at the end of academic year 1996–97, it was not possible to estimate, in time for the publication of the Department's Main Estimates in March 1997, the value of outstanding demand-led claims likely to be made by colleges during the 1997–98 financial year. The extent of outstanding super-demand-led claims relating to the final term of academic year 1996–97 was not known with accuracy until late 1997, at which point financial provision was contained within a previously agreed total.

  The Further Education Funding Council claim cash-limited and non-cash limited payments separately. Since the Department asked the Funding Council to end the system of super-demand-led funding at the end of academic year 1996–97, the Funding Council decided to end the arrangement whereby each unit of funding contained a notional demand-led component. Accordingly, the Funding Council has made claims for entire funding units against section A of the Estimate rather than section B, whose use it has subsequently restricted to claiming for the cost of outstanding super-demand-led claims from colleges.

  The effect is that Funding Council claims for expenditure from section A will exceed provision by

  345
  £267,200,000 while claims from section B will be correspondingly lower. The virement from section B to section A will enable the Department to meet Funding Council claims for expenditure within the overall level of funding provided to it.

  The decrease in the cash limit of £4,402,000 will be used to offset an equivalent increase in the non-Voted DfEE/LACAP cash limit for local authority capital for school building projects. The DfEE/LACAP will increase from £72,107,000 to £76,509,000 as a result.

  Pupils, full-time equivalent (FTE) teachers and pupil-teacher ratios in Education Authority schools

  Primary

  Secondary

  Special

  Year

  Number of pupils

  Number of teachers (FTE)

  Pupil-teacher ratio

  Number of pupils

  Number of teachers (FTE)

  Pupil-teacher ratio

  Number of pupils

  Number of teachers (FTE)

  Pupil-teacher ratio

  19971

  440,066

  22,092.1

  19.9

  314,061

  23,862.7

  13.2

  7,662

  1,606.5

  4.8

  1996

  441,215

  22,459.8

  19.6

  315,912

  24,205.9

  13.1

  7,646

  1,578.6

  4.8

  1995

  440,112

  22,526.2

  19.5

  316,253

  24,536.7

  12.9

  7,595

  1,573.1

  4.8

  19942

  437,964

  22,471.2

  19.5

  314,779

  24,478.1

  12.9

  8,712

  1,925.4

  4.5

  1993

  438,345

  22,448.9

  19.5

  311,176

  24,264.4

  12.8

  8,559

  1,909.0

  4.5

  1992

  438,914

  22,724.0

  19.3

  302,986

  23,984.3

  12.6

  8,456

  1,950.6

  4.3

  1991

  440,752

  22,648.7

  19.5

  296,367

  23,812.1

  12.4

  8,255

  1,826.0

  4.5

  1990

  440,534

  22,629.0

  19.5

  293,501

  23,979.6

  12.2

  8,302

  1,838.9

  4.5

  1989

  437,018

  22,182.9

  19.7

  298,394

  24,136.5

  12.4

  8,405

  1,783.7

  4.7

  1988

  432,707

  21,319.7

  20.3

  311,500

  24,559.6

  12.7

  8,939

  1,795.8

  5

  1987

  430,865

  21,166.7

  20.4

  327,012

  25,189.7

  13

  9,009

  1,709.7

  5.3

  1 All 1997 figures provisional. The number of teachers in secondary schools includes estimates for 20 schools.

  2 Up to and including 1994, pupils and teachers based in special units in mainstream schools were included in the special school figures.

  Scottish Parliament
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to take independent advice on the remuneration levels for members of the Scottish Parliament and members of the Scottish Executive. [37183]

  Mr. McLeish
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has written to Sir Michael Perry CBE, Chairman of the Senior Salaries Review Body. A copy of this letter will be placed in the Library. The letter invites the Senior Salaries Review Body to consider and make recommendations on pay, allowances and pensions of Members of the Scottish Parliament and Members of the Scottish Executive. It is expected that the Senior Salaries Review Body will make its initial recommendations on salary levels for Members of the Scottish Parliament this Autumn.

  Agricultural Science Agency
  Mr. Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the performance of the Scottish Agricultural Science Agency against its targets for 1997–98 and the setting of targets for 1998–99. [37184]

  Mr. Dewar
  The Agency is on course to meet the Commons target for 1997–98 which were set out in my predecessor's answer of 20 May 1997,Official Report, columns 748–49.

  For 1998–99 I have set the Agency the following key performance targets:
  fulfilment of the Service Level Agreement with SOAEFD within the budget allocated for 1998–99;
  346

  SCOTLAND

    Teachers
    Mr. Gorrie
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many pupils and full-time equivalent teachers there were in Scottish(a) primary, (b) secondary and (c) special schools in the state sector and in the last 10 sessions; how many there are in the current session; and what were the resultant teacher-pupil ratios in each year. [35842]

    Mr. Wilson
    The information is set out in the table.
    continuation of the programme of consultation of all customers on the quality of the work done by the Agency;completion of 94 per cent. of all scientific test and analyses within the timescales set by customers;improvement in the unit cost of the scientific work of the Agency (cost per direct scientific hour);achievement of the target income of £50,000 from new work or new customers.

  TREASURY

    Government Expenditure
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the figures for general Government expenditure as forecast in the Budget of November 1996 for the years 1997–98 and 1998–99, revalued on the basis of the GDP deflator assumed in(a) the July 1997 Budget and (b) the March 1998 Budget. [35865]

    Mr. Darling
    [holding answer 23 March 1998]: General Government Expenditure as forecast in the November 1996 Budget revalued on the July 1997 Budget deflators would be £310.5 billion for 1997–98 and £310.0 billion for 1998–99. Based on the March 1998 Budget deflators the figures would be £310.6 billion for 1997–98 and £309.7 billion for 1998–99. (Figures are given in 1996–97 prices).

    Mozambique (Debt)
    Mr. Hopkins
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the progress of Mozambique in respect of the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative. [34645]

    Mr. Gordon Brown
    [holding answer 25 March 1998]: The position after the Paris Club meeting in January was that Mozambique still required $100 million to ensure that its debt burden will be reduced to a sustainable level under the HIPC initiative. Last month, the Government announced that the UK would contribute an additional $10 million toward meeting that gap. Other countries have now begun to respond to our lead, and indicate their intention to contribute.

    Table B5: Projections of budget deficits and debt1

    Per cent. of GDP

    Outturn 1996–97

    Estimate 1997–98

    1998–99

    1999–2000

    Projections 2000–01

    2001–02

    2002–03

    GGR

    38.3

    39.6

    39.9

    39.9

    40.3

    40.5

    40.5

    Tax/GDP ratio2

    36

    37.1

    37.7

    37.4

    37.5

    37.8

    37.8

    (a) ¾ per cent, real CT growth

    GGFD3

    3.8

    1

    0.4

    –0.6

    –1.5

    –2.6

    –3.4

    Current balance

    –2.7

    –0.2

    0.4

    1.4

    2.3

    3.4

    4.1

    PSBR

    3

    0.6

    0.5

    –0.3

    –1.3

    –2.2

    –3.2

    Net public sector debt

    45

    43.5

    42.1

    40.2

    37.4

    33.7

    29.3

    General government gross debt4

    54.3

    51.9

    50.5

    48.5

    45.5

    41.6

    37

    (b) 1½per cent. real CT growth

    GGFD3

    3.8

    1

    0.4

    –0.3

    –1

    –1.8

    –2.3

    Current balance

    –2.7

    –0.2

    0.4

    1.2

    1.9

    2.6

    3.1

    PSBR

    3

    0.6

    0.5

    –0.1

    –0.8

    –1.5

    –2.1

    Net public sector debt

    45

    43.5

    42.1

    40.5

    38.1

    35.1

    31.7

    General government gross debt4

    54.3

    51.9

    50.5

    48.7

    46.2

    43

    39.4

    (c) 2¼ per cent. real CT growth

    GGFD3

    3.8

    1

    0.4

    –0.1

    –0.5

    –1

    –1.2

    Current balance

    –2.7

    –0.2

    0.4

    0.9

    1.4

    1.9

    2.1

    PSBR

    3

    0.6

    0.5

    0.2

    –0.3

    –0.7

    –1.1

    Net public sector debt

    45

    43.5

    42.1

    40.7

    38.9

    36.6

    34.2

    General government gross debt4

    54.3

    51.9

    50.5

    49

    46.9

    44.4

    41.8

    1 GGFD, current balance and PSBR exclude windfall tax receipts and associated spending.

    2 As defined in Table B8.

    3 UK national accounts definition.

    4 Ratio on a Maastricht basis. GDP is on an ESA79 basis, year ending in March.

    Table B8: Total receipts

    Per cent. of GDP

    Outturn 1996–1997

    Estimate 1997–98

    1998–99

    1999–2000

    Projections 2000–01

    2001–02

    2002–03

    Income tax (gross of tax credits)

    9.5

    10

    10.3

    10.6

    10.8

    10.9

    11

    Income tax credits1

    –0.3

    –0.4

    –0.2

    –0.4

    –0.7

    –0.8

    –0.8

    Corporation tax

    3.7

    3.8

    3.6

    3.7

    3.7

    3.9

    3.7

    Windfall tax

    —

    0.3

    0.3

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Value added tax

    6.2

    6.4

    6.4

    6.4

    6.3

    6.3

    6.2

    Excise duties2

    4.1

    4.2

    4.4

    4.5

    4.6

    4.7

    4.8

    Other taxes and royalties3

    6.5

    6.5

    6.5

    6.5

    6.6

    6.5

    6.5

    Social security contributions

    6.3

    6.3

    6.4

    6.3

    6.3

    6.4

    6.4

    Net tax and social security contributions4

    36.0

    37.1

    37.7

    37.4

    37.5

    37.8

    37.8

    Other receipts and accounting adjustments5

    2.1

    2.2

    1.9

    2.0

    2.3

    2.1

    2.2

    Total receipts

    38.1

    39.3

    39.6

    39.4

    39.8

    40.0

    40.1

    Total receipts (£ billion)

    286.4

    313.1

    330.1

    344.0

    364.0

    382.8

    402.4

    1 Mainly MIRAS and tax reliefs under the Working Family Tax Credit scheme (see paragraph B59 in conventions used in presenting the public finances).

    2 Fuel, alcohol and tobacco duties.

    3 Includes Council Tax and money paid into the National Lottery Distribution Fund, as well as other central government taxes. Net of bus fuel duty rebate (previously netted off excise duties).

    4 Net of income tax credits, cash basis.

    5 Includes tax credits scored as public expenditure (see paragraph B60 in conventions used in presenting the public finances).

    348
    We hope that a decision on the level and timing of Mozambique's debt relief under the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative will be reached soon.

    "Financial Statement and Budget Report"
    Mr. Timms
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about Tables B5, B8, B9 and B24 in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report". [37189]

    Dawn Primarolo
    There were some minor errors in these tables. Corrected versions are printed in the following tables. A corrected copy of Chart B2 has been placed in the Libraries of the House.
    349

    Table B9: General government receipts1

    £ billion

    Outturn 1996–97

    Estimate 1997–98

    Projection 1998–99

    Inland Revenue

    Income tax (gross of tax credits)

    71.5

    79.4

    86.1

    Income tax credits

    –2.6

    –2.9

    –1.9

    Corporation tax2

    27.8

    30.5

    30.0

    Windfall tax

    —

    2.6

    2.6

    Petroleum revenue tax

    1.7

    1.1

    0.5

    Capital gains tax

    1.1

    1.4

    2.2

    Inheritance tax

    1.6

    1.7

    1.9

    Stamp duties

    2.5

    3.4

    4.6

    Total Inland Revenue (net of tax credits)

    103.6

    117.2

    126.0

    Customs and Excise

    Value added tax

    46.7

    51.0

    53.3

    Fuel duties

    17.2

    19.1

    21.5

    Tobacco duties

    8.0

    8.3

    8.9

    Spirits duties

    1.6

    1.5

    1.6

    Wine duties

    1.3

    1.4

    1.5

    Beer and cider duties

    2.8

    2.8

    2.9

    Betting and gaming duties

    1.4

    1.5

    1.6

    Air passenger duty

    0.4

    0.5

    0.7

    Insurance premium tax

    0.7

    1.0

    1.3

    Landfill tax

    0.1

    0.4

    0.4

    Customs duties and levies

    2.3

    2.3

    2.0

    Total Customs and Excise

    82.4

    89.9

    95.6

    Table B24: Historical series of government expenditure, receipts and deficits1

    Per cent. of GDP

    Year

    Public sector current balance

    Public sector financial deficit

    Public sector borrowing requirement

    General government financial deficit2

    Net taxes and NICs3

    General government receipts

    Control Total4

    1970–71

    7.0

    –0.4

    1.5

    –2.4

    —

    40.3

    —

    1971–72

    4.5

    1.2

    1.6

    –0.6

    —

    39.9

    —

    1972–73

    2.2

    3.0

    3.6

    1.9

    —

    37.9

    —

    1973–74

    1.1

    4.6

    5.8

    3.5

    —

    38.5

    —

    1974–75

    –0.4

    6.7

    9.0

    4.3

    —

    40.5

    —

    1975–76

    –1.2

    7.3

    9.2

    4.9

    —

    40.2

    —

    1976–77

    –0.7

    5.7

    6.4

    4.4

    —

    41.0

    —

    1977–78

    –0.9

    4.4

    3.6

    3.5

    —

    39.7

    —

    1978–79

    –1.8

    4.9

    5.3

    4.1

    33.0

    38.7

    —

    1979–80

    –1.2

    3.9

    4.8

    2.9

    33.8

    38.8

    —

    1980–81

    –2.8

    4.9

    5.3

    3.9

    35.5

    40.7

    —

    1981–82

    –0.8

    2.1

    3.3

    1.7

    38.5

    43.7

    —

    1982–83

    3.0

    3.1

    2.8

    38.7

    43.7

    —

    1983–84

    –1.8

    3.8

    3.1

    3.8

    37.9

    42.9

    —

    1984–85

    –2.4

    4.2

    3.1

    3.8

    38.7

    43.4

    38.5

    1985–86

    –0.8

    2.2

    1.5

    2.4

    37.8

    42.3

    36

    1986–87

    –1.1

    2.1

    0.9

    2.3

    37.3

    41.4

    35.1

    1987–88

    0.1

    0.7

    –0.8

    1.1

    37.1

    41.1

    34.7

    1988–89

    2.0

    –1.4

    –3.0

    –1.0

    36.4

    40.3

    32.7

    1989–90

    2.0

    –0.5

    –1.5

    0.1

    36.0

    40.1

    33.7

    1990–91

    1.0

    0.6

    –0.1

    0.9

    36.7

    39.3

    34.5

    1991–92

    –1.3

    3.2

    2.4

    3.2

    35.7

    38.3

    36.5

    1992–93

    –5.3

    7.6

    6.0

    7.5

    34.1

    36.7

    38.0

    1993–94

    –6.0

    7.8

    7.1

    7.8

    33.5

    35.9

    37.5

    1994–95

    –4.6

    6.3

    5.3

    6.2

    34.6

    36.9

    36.4

    1995–96

    –3.4

    4.9

    4.4

    5.1

    35.6

    38.0

    35.8

    1996–97

    –2.7

    3.6

    3.0

    3.9

    36.0

    38.1

    34.5

    1997–98

    0.2

    0.6

    0.3

    0.7

    37.1

    39.3

    33.2

    1998–99

    0.7

    0.2

    0.3

    0.1

    37.7

    39.6

    33.0

    1 Including windfall tax receipts and associated spending.

    2 GGFD on UK national accounts definition prior to 1996–97 and a Maastricht basis thereafter.

    3 As defined in Table B8. Figures are available on a consistent basis only for the years shown.

    4 Figures for the Control Total are available on a consistent basis only for the years shown.

    350

    Table B9: General government receipts1

    £ billion

    Outturn 1996–97

    Estimate 1997–98

    Projection 1998–99

    Vehicle excise duties

    4.2

    4.6

    4.6

    Oil royalties

    0.7

    0.5

    0.3

    Business rates3

    14.7

    14.7

    15.0

    Social security contributions

    47.1

    50.5

    53.7

    Council Tax

    10.1

    11.1

    11.6

    Other taxes and royalties4

    7.9

    7.6

    7.2

    Net taxes and social security contributions

    270.5

    295.9

    314.0

    Interest and dividends

    5.2

    5.1

    4.5

    Gross trading surpluses and rent

    4.9

    4.8

    4.9

    Other receipts and accounting

    adjustments5

    5.8

    7.3

    6.7

    General government receipts

    286.4

    313.1

    330.1

    North Sea revenues6

    3.6

    3.4

    2.6

    1 On a cash basis.

    2 Includes advance corporation tax (net of repayments): (Outturn 1996–97) 11.9; (Estimate 1997–98) 11.8; (Projection 1998–99) 11.3. Also includes North Sea corporation tax after ACT set off, and corporation tax on gains.

    3 Includes district council rates in Northern Ireland.

    4 Net of bus fuel duty rebate (previously netted off excise duties).

    5 Includes accruals adjustments for index-linked gilts.

    6 North Sea corporation tax (before ACT set-off), petroleum revenue tax and royalties.

    351

    Ministerial Advisers
    Mr. Gibb
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to appoint new advisers for his Ministerial team in the period from April to June. [36715]

    Mr. Gordon Brown
    None.

    WALES

      Redundancies
      Mr. Barry Jones
      To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many ASSI Doman employees at the Castle Cement Site, Buckley, who were made redundant, have been found jobs; and if he will make a statement; [35740]

      (2) how many Kimberley Clark employees at the Deeside Industrial Park who were scheduled for redundancy have been found jobs; and if he will make a statement. [35739]

      Mr. Hain
      A firm of consultants was employed by the company to find alternative employment for those people made redundant. However, information on those who have found jobs is not held centrally.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Rowlands
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what his current estimate is of the percentage of the(a) male and (b) female population of working age currently in employment; and what the percentages are for each employment district and for each county and county borough in Wales; [35628]

    (2) what his current estimate is of the percentage of the population of working age currently in employment; and what that percentage is for each employment service district and for each county or county borough in Wales. [35627]

    Mr. Hain
    In Autumn 1997, 68 per cent. of the working age population in Wales were in employment according to the Labour Force Survey. The equivalent figures for males and females were 72 per cent. and 64 per cent.

    The latest data available for unitary authorities in Wales are for 1996, these are given in the table; data are unavailable for employment service districts.

    Percentage of working age population in employment, 19961

    Males

    Females

    All persons

    Blaenau Gwent

    68

    50

    60

    Bridgend

    76

    71

    74

    Caerphilly

    67

    56

    62

    Cardiff

    76

    73

    74

    Carmarthenshire

    72

    58

    66

    Ceredigion

    78

    72

    75

    Conwy

    73

    62

    67

    Denbighshire

    75

    67

    71

    Flintshire

    81

    69

    75

    Gwynedd

    73

    63

    68

    Isle of Anglesey

    70

    54

    62

    Merthyr Tydfil

    66

    62

    64

    Monmouthshire

    76

    65

    71

    Neath Port Talbot

    65

    57

    61

    Newport

    71

    63

    67

    352

    Percentage of working age population in employment, 19961

    Males

    Females

    All persons

    Pembrokeshire

    69

    59

    64

    Powys

    84

    72

    78

    Rhondda, Cynon, Taff

    65

    59

    62

    Swansea

    70

    64

    67

    The Vale of Glamorgan

    77

    67

    72

    Torfaen

    78

    74

    76

    Wrexham

    75

    59

    68

    Wales

    73

    64

    68

    1 Including employees, self-employed, people on government training and employment programmes and unpaid family workers.

    Source:

    Labour Force Survey annual database

    EU Structural Funds
    Mr. Wigley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the use of unemployment figures to determine regional eligibility for EU structural funds. [35625]

    Mr. Hain
    The Commission's proposals for Structural Funds and for other cohesion policies for the years 2000–2006, published on 18 March, suggest unemployment rates as the main criterion to determine eligible areas under the new Objective 2 of the Structural Funds.

    The UK, like other Member States, has difficulties with certain aspects of the new draft regulations, for example unemployment. The UK tends to have lower unemployment rates compared to other EU Members in equally poor areas. During the forthcoming negotiations we will be working hard, with other Member States and the Commission, to improve these draft regulations and to reach a fair and affordable outcome.

    Further Education
    Mr. Öpik
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the number of Wales—domiciled students studying on four—year courses at Scottish universities; and if he will make a statement. [361971

    Mr. Hain
    The latest available figures as at December 1996, for the academic year 1996/97, show that there were 299 Welsh domiciled—students on higher education courses with the expected length of study being of four years duration at Scottish higher education institutions.

    Social Work (Training and Regulation)
    Mr. Gareth Thomas
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what arrangements he plans to make following the recent review of the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work, for the regulation and training of the social services workforce in Wales. [37188]

    Mr. Win Griffiths
    The publication of a fundamental review of the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work (CCETSW) was announced in the House on 22 December 1997,Official Report, column 553. Since then, I have been giving careful thought to the best arrangements for regulating the social services workforce in Wales, consistent with the Government's plans to

    353
    establish the National Assembly for Wales. I have taken into account, too, the announcement that there is to be separate regulatory machinery for Scotland.

    I have concluded that there should be a separate body for the regulation of the social services workforce in Wales. However, the Welsh body must have the closest possible alignment with similar machinery in the other countries of the UK, and officials will be working to ensure that effective links of this kind are put into place.

    We also need to have coherent overall arrangements for developing and enforcing high standards of conduct and practice, and for ensuring that workforce and training strategies are directed towards the same standards.

    I have, therefore, asked officials to explore how we can best bring together the work of the regulatory body and the work in Wales of any future National Training Organisation for the personal social services.

    Children and adults who use the social services in Wales should be able to rely on a workforce that is properly trained, appropriately qualified and effectively regulated. We will be bringing forward more detailed
    354
    legislative proposals for the new regulatory body in the social services White Paper already promised. I have asked the Chief Inspector of the Social Services Inspectorate for Wales to pave the way for this by starting discussions with key stakeholders within the next few days.

    Green Transport
    Mr. Baker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) on what date he plans to introduce a green commuting plan; [36661]

    (2) what specific changes to departmental transport arrangements have to date been implemented following the receipt of the Green Transport Plan. [36643]

    Mr. Ron Davies
    My Department has already drawn up a Green Action Plan which addresses all aspects of our activities, including transport. We will be reviewing this in the context of the Governments forthcoming White Paper on Integrated Transport Policy with a view to producing a specific Green Transport Plan. This Plan will cover commuting by staff to and from work as well as their travel on official business.

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

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, before the commencement of business I take the opportunity to inform the House that I am to host a welcome luncheon for the Prime Minister of China on behalf of Her Majesty's Government on Wednesday, 1st April. Accordingly, I trust that the House will grant me leave of absence on that day.

Prime Minister (Ecclesiastical Functions) Bill [H.L.]
11.6 a.m.
Lord Alderdice: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision for the alternative exercise of the ecclesiastical functions of the Prime Minister when that office is held by a person who is not a member of the Church of England. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Alderdice.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Electricity Generation Bill [H.L.]
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Ezra, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be di scharged.—(Baroness Maddock.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Mental Health (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]
11.8 a.m.
Lord Rowallan: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Rowallan.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Strategies for the provision of in patient facilities in psychiatric units]:
Lord Rowallan Lord Rowallan moved Amendment No. 1:
Page I, line 8, at end insert ("and other 24—hour nursed hed—).
The noble Lord said: This amendment came about as a result of the Second Reading of this Bill and provides for 24—hour nursed beds to be available in each health authority. Both Sane and the National Schizophrenia Fellowship support this amendment. I am pleased to say that the Mental After Care Association also supports it. Mind, which has not liked Clause 1 of this Bill up to now, accepts it is a good idea for area authorities to have an appropriate strategy both in the context of in—patients, who are well catered for in this Bill, and those needing care in the community.
This Bill does not deal with out—patient care at all. But I give Mind and all the other charities concerned a firm commitment that in the absence of a new mental health Act being revealed shortly, I shall tackle the issue of out—patients and care in the community soon. To this end I look forward to the proposed Green Paper on mental health reform which is due at the beginning of April but which I gather has now been delayed. I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, to inform this Chamber when she now expects it to be published.
It has to be significant that all the psychiatrists I have spoken to—after all, they are in the front line of mental healthcare—support this clause and its amendment. We should remember that there is a one in 10 chance of someone contracting the dreadful illness of schizophrenia. It does not respect wealth, colour, creed or geography as the statistics are the same the world over. Schizophrenics who either do not respond to, or comply with, medication pose particular problems to mental health services. For these people 24—hour care and nursing support within a safe, therapeutic environment is a necessary and important stage of this care.
This amendment has become even more important as a result of the recent Bournewood ruling in the courts stipulating that any patient unable to give informed consent must be detained on a section of the Mental Health Act. This of course dramatically increases the number of patients because it now takes into account all those with Alzheimer's, learning difficulties, etc., who need 24—hour care as they will be detained by law. I beg to move.
Lord Thurlow: I support this amendment. If the Bill were to become law it is manifestly important that it should cover the whole range of beds, including those in 24—hour nursed units. In that connection, it would be helpful if the Minister could give us an indication of what progress has been made with the creation of 24—hour nursed units for which we had high hopes two years ago when the previous government introduced the measure. However, we realised that there were difficult problems with regard to resources.
The noble Baroness in her forceful statement on Second Reading—I regret I was unable to be present—made it clear that it was not strictly necessary to

1457
introduce primary legislation at this stage to achieve the specific object of the Bill, and that under existing law the authorities are under an obligation to make strategic reviews and plans. Equally, there are obvious disadvantages in tackling this particular area piecemeal when we hope and believe that the Government are on the point of addressing the wide range of urgent and necessary issues. I accept that we cannot expect this Bill to reach the statute book, but that does not make the debate any less useful. It is a long time since we had a general debate of any kind on this urgent social question on which Parliament and the public have been for so long, and are still, exercised.
We look forward to the report to the Minister of the independent reference group and the Government's Statement. There has been considerable confusion arising from conflicting reports of the Government's immediate intention to close the big hospitals. We need clarification. It is not the fault of the present Government that they are landed with an immensely difficult, almost insoluble, problem of the discrepancy between resource and requirements. Nonetheless that makes it necessary to get on with the most urgent issues. I submit that all sides of the House have indicated that the issue of the closure of beds is perhaps the most urgent.
Lord Alderdice: The Bill results from the dismay felt by the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, when it became apparent to him that there was great difficulty in acute in patient psychiatric facilities. It has occurred over a period of time as we have attempted to move from the widespread treatment of patients in acute in patient beds to care in the community. That in itself is a laudable and welcome development.
However, the resources left behind in the acute hospitals, and the concentration of disturbed people there, have led to considerable difficulties in the management of acute in patient beds. The concern of the noble Lord is shared widely by those who work with people in acute in patient facilities in psychiatric hospitals throughout the country as they become increasingly worried that the experience of in patient care is much less therapeutic and more custodial—something we hoped we had left behind a long time ago.
However, there are other reasons why acute in patient beds have become blocked. This became apparent as we looked into the matter. It is particularly apparent in the review paper published in the British Medical Journal some time ago by Shepherd and his colleagues. It is pointed out that one of the reasons why many people stayed in acute facilities is not that other facilities in the community were not readily available but because other residential facilities, properly manned by specialised care workers, were not available. That is why the Royal College of Psychiatrists has begun increasingly to talk about 24-hour nursed bed units in the community. Those are not a half-way house between acute psychiatric care and community care but facilities which provide the necessary expertise and containment appropriate for people in that setting.
1458
That is why, in the light of further exploration and concerns expressed that the Bill would point people back into acute psychiatric facilities rather than out into the community, the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, has brought forward the amendment. I heartily support it. I believe that it has increased overall support for the Bill. I beg noble Lords heartily to support the amendment.
11.15 a.m.
Earl Howe: I, too, support the amendment. My noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, have set out the arguments for it most ably. I wish only to reinforce and develop one or two key points.
The main criticism of Clause 1—it was rehearsed by some noble Lords at Second Reading—is that by focusing on the requirement to provide in patient facilities it unhelpfully skews the emphasis of patient care away from community provision and towards in patient beds. In other words, by singling out one aspect of the continuum of care for mental patients one is somehow damaging the balance of care available to such patients and distorting the overall allocation of resources.
There are two answers to that point. First, one of the main reasons that my noble friend felt moved to introduce this Bill is that there is a clear need to right what is already an imbalance in the system. As the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, emphasised with tremendous authority at Second Reading and again today, many people in need of in patient care are not receiving it. Often they are not receiving it because available resources are being over concentrated on community provision. No one is arguing, least of all my noble friend, I am sure, against the principle of community care. Community care—thank goodness—is here to stay and we must do all we can to foster and support it to ensure that it works well. But if we believe, as I do, that community care is not the whole answer and that there are those who need looking after either short or long term in surroundings where professional help is continuously to hand, we need to focus more on how current shortcomings in that area can be addressed.
The second rebuttal to the criticism of Clause 1 is surely this. The clause speaks of the requirement for health authorities to prepare a strategy for in patient care. I do not believe that that formulation allows one to argue that health authorities are thereby being discouraged from preparing strategies for other services. On the contrary, the provision of a strategy for in patient beds should relate directly to a local needs assessment and be part of the much wider planning process which predicts and meets demand for mental health services and for support services generally, including housing and primary care.
The amendment seeks to insert a specific mention of 24 hour nursed beds into the definition of the facilities for which health authorities have a duty to plan. The need for 24 hour nursed beds relates particularly to those people with schizophrenia and other severe mental illness who either do not respond to, or perhaps more frequently do not comply with, their prescribed

1459
medication. Those patients represent a serious problem to the health service. For them quick access to a safe and secure environment in a hospital bed, or its equivalent—so long as it has 24 hour nursing support—is a vital part of treatment. The amendment strengthens Clause I, and I support it.
Lord Lyell: I wonder whether the Minister or any noble Lords who have spoken could give me some assistance over the definition of a 24 hour nursed bed, compared to in patient facilities. Otherwise, perhaps they could tell me where I might look for information. I have had only one brief experience of the subject; many years ago, with my noble friend Lord Trefgarne, I visited the state hospital at Carstairs, with which the noble Baroness may be familiar. Perhaps the noble Baroness or my noble friend, or perhaps even the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, could point me in the direction of a precise definition and set out what are the aspects of a nursed bed. I am learning a great deal from this debate and from all the work that my noble friend has done on this Bill. I should be grateful if the Minister could assist me, either during the debate today or in the future.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: During the debate at Second Reading, I spoke in some detail about why the Government are unable to support this Bill. I shall not rehearse all those arguments again. Suffice it to say that the Government do not favour piecemeal changes to a complex piece of legislation such as the Mental Health Act. Significant changes to the legislative framework should, in our view, be taken as part of a full review of the Act. I can confirm that we are considering the need for such a review, and will take into account the views of all interested parties.
The noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, asked me whether a Green Paper would be published. My honourable friend Mr. Paul Boateng is taking a long, hard look at mental health and all related services. Nothing has been agreed yet, and discussion of the plans is therefore premature. At the appropriate time plans for mental health services will be looked at in the light of the comprehensive spending review, and we will set out our plans to build a new basis of confidence in our mental health services, making sure that we secure the welfare of those with a mental illness while safeguarding the public.
At that point, it will also be important to share our ideas with experts and professionals, as well as users, and to hear the range of views. We are committed to ensuring that the right structures, the right staffing, the right care systems, and the right legislation are in place. We are firmly committed to building those elements of effective mental healthcare and to building public confidence.
With the addition of the proposed amendment, Clause 1 of the Bill would now refer to two elements of services where the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, would like to see specific action: separate in patient facilities and 24 hour nursed beds. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, I shall attempt, perhaps inadequately, to give a definition based on my understanding of 24 hour nursed beds. These beds are not necessarily in hospitals—they could
1460
be in special homes or hostels—but they are covered by 24 hour nursing care. I see the experts nodding, so I think I have the definition right.
The noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, asked me specifically in his very interesting and well—received intervention what progress has been made in introducing 24—hour nursed beds. I am happy to say that some progress has been made. That has been assisted through targeted funding under the Mental Health Challenge Fund, which increased the number of such beds by 200. A further review of provision has recently been undertaken and we shall publish the results in due course.
To return to the amendment, separate in patient facilities and 24 hour nursed beds are just two elements of a range of local services which we expect to see in health services strategic plans and available to vulnerable mentally ill people. The Government already support the concept of 24 hour nursed beds. Other elements include: acute hospital beds; hostels and supported housing; occupational rehabilitation; secure provision; crisis care intervention; day care; and a full range of effective treatments.
It is vital that health authorities should retain the flexibility to commission and develop services within government priorities and guidelines but according to local need. The original clause, and the proposed amendment, would severely restrict their capacity to do so. The Government therefore do not consider that there would be any merit in enshrining these provisions in legislation. Therefore we cannot support the amendment.
Lord Renton: I regret that the Government do not support the Bill. I was interested to hear that the Secretary of State is to consider the previous legislation on this matter. I wish to draw attention to the fact that both mental illness and mental handicap are covered by the present legislation. I hope that the Government will bear in mind that, whereas mental illness is often curable, mental handicap is quite incurable. People who suffer from mental handicap should be kept quite separately, in different types of hospital or other places, from those who are mentally ill. Will the Government bear that clear distinction in mind?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: I note very carefully what the noble Lord has said. It will be on record and I am sure the Government will take it into account.
Lord Mottistone: In supporting this Bill, perhaps I may leave with the Minister the thought that the Bill's purpose is to ensure that there is accommodation for people who need it, and that they are not left out in the community when they should not be there. There are far too many instances where accommodation is not available for them. The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, made these points specifically. I hope that the Government will pay particular attention to the noble Lord's contribution to the debate and to the remarks of other noble Lords.
It is all very well taking a long time to sort out what needs to be done about possible amendment to the Mental Health Act 1983—which would probably be a

1461
very good thing—but if in the meantime we have disasters because people are inadequately cared for in the community, and they do some harm either to themselves or others, then the Government are failing. Perhaps the Minister will encourage her honourable friend Mr. Boateng to get on with it and do something positive quickly. Then, Bills like this will not be required.
Lord Swinfen: Before the Minister replies, perhaps I may support the point made by my noble friend Lord Mottistone, but emphasise that such accommodation should be supervised. Very often, patients who are mentally ill can leave hospital and live in the community; but where they are on medication, if that medication is not supervised and they do not take it, their condition deteriorates. They can become dangerous to themselves or to other people. They might then need to go back into hospital, at considerably greater expense.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: I very much appreciate the concerns raised by both previous speakers. I also appreciate that behind the Bill, the amendments and the statements by the noble Lords, Lord Rowallan and Lord Alderdice, there are excellent intentions. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, that, because we are taking care of what is, after all, a most important and wide ranging piece of legislation and examining it very carefully, that does not mean that the Government, over the 10 or 11 months that they have been in office, have not been doing everything that they can to rectify the problems raised. I hope I made clear that, while we object to the Bill on some points of principle, our main objection is to having piecemeal legislation such as this.
11.30 a.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: The noble Baroness's appreciation will come as somewhat thin beer to those of us who want something to be done now. While appreciating what the Minister said in her opening remarks in response to my noble friend Lord Rowallan, the problem is that, as she said, her right honourable friend and the Government want to take a long, hard look at this matter, it being only part of a much wider problem, and that in due course it might be felt necessary to have a full review. We are therefore a couple of years away from doing anything. No doubt after two years a Green or White Paper will appear and after another year or 18 months legislation may eventually appear before Parliament. That means that it will be five or six years before anything is done.
As all noble Lords who took part in the debate at Second Reading and this morning have said, this matter is urgent. Can the Minister tell us now what action she foresees to alleviate the situation underlined by this Bill?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: I do not have the crystal ball which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has which tells him that it will be five or six years before anything is done and I shall not make any predictions. We are looking at the situation and are very alive to all
1462
the issues. There are already positive moves on many points raised by noble Lords today and at Second Reading. I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, will have to wait and see until the Government report on their careful considerations and consultations on this wide-ranging and important subject.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Having listened to this fascinating and rather worrying discussion, perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness whether the Government are looking at the reform of certain existing statutes—and, if so, which—as part of the work they are doing or whether they are looking at the matter with a view to introducing an entirely new legislative structure. It would be interesting, and a source of comfort to many concerned, to know exactly what the Government are doing. I am not criticising from the point of view that the work will take a long time; the problem is serious and difficult. However, it would be interesting to know whether the Government are looking at the amendment of existing statutes or at an overall new approach in a new statute.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: I made clear—though obviously not clear enough—in my opening remarks on this amendment that one of the reasons why the Government do not favour the Bill is that we do not favour piecemeal changes to a complex piece of legislation such as the Mental Health Act. In our view, significant changes should be made as part of a review of the whole Act. I confirmed to the Committee that we are considering the need for a review of the Act and in doing so will take account of the views of all interested parties.
Lord Rowallan: I am delighted to hear the noble Baroness indicate that the Government are giving this matter very serious thought. After all, It is an extremely serious matter. There are an enormous number of mentally ill and mentally handicapped people, as my noble friend indicated, in the world today. However, we cannot wait, as was suggested at Second Reading, until 2004 or 2010. Something needs to be done much sooner.
I am delighted that the Minister's right honourable friend is looking at the matter seriously and carefully, but legislation is required now. Mental health has always been the Cinderella service, historically under resourced and neglected. Many patients remain in anti-therapeutic and wholly unacceptable environments. The law compels many patients to reside in such places and therefore the law should offer protection for those to whom its sanctions apply. Primary legislation is necessary now; we cannot wait for a new Act.
As I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, agrees, morale in the profession is rock-bottom. Recruitment is falling. Professionals elect to take early retirement, in part because they cannot bear the working conditions. Section rates are increasing year on year, partly because patients fear hospital admission and because of the disturbed anti-therapeutic environment which exists. Because of the Bournewood ruling, more and more people are liable to be put into necessary 24-hour care.

1463
We cannot wait any longer. It is for that reason that I have introduced the Bill in the hope that, although it does not embrace the whole problem, we can sort out a small part of it. In-patient care is only about 10 per cent. of the problem, 90 per cent. relating to care in the community and out patient care. If we can sort out this small part of the problem first, we shall at least be doing something to help those who are afflicted by this terrible illness and for whom, unless we do something, there is not much hope.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Privacy and physical security for in-patients]:
Lord Rowallan Lord Rowallan moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 25. after ("units") insert—
("() the provision of in-patient facilities for young people, separate from those for adults;").
The noble Lord said: Again, as a result of Second Reading, it became obvious that not only women but also the young were in danger and required single-sex ward areas. The young often find themselves in the very unsavoury position of being next to an adult who poses a danger to them. It can be a very frightening world for the young in a mental ward. I have seen it and it is not something I would wish on anyone. All the main mental health charities support this clause and the amendment.
Keeping the young in a safe, therapeutic ward area can only help them if they are in an area separate from adults. It is our duty to ensure that young people suffering from mental illness have every opportunity to recover from their illness. The amendment seeks to do that by giving them the same chance to enjoy a therapeutic environment as adult women and men in which to receive the care and attention which they so desperately need in order to recover. I beg to move.
Lord Alderdice: I first became aware of the difficulties faced by young people as in-patients in psychiatric units when in Northern Ireland in the early 1980s no psychiatrists were specifically allocated to deal with the problems of adolescents. It was not hard to see why that was the case. The key thing about being a young person is that it is time-limited. After a few years one grows out of being a young person and becomes an adult, who may be just as disturbed or even more so but for whom responsibility moves to different authorities.
I may say—I take some encouragement from this—that when we were enabled to debate the matter in the Northern Ireland Assembly, which had no legislative powers but simply gave us the opportunity to debate matters, within a short time there were changes because it became a matter of public concern and an adolescents' psychiatry unit was established.
A number of developments have created further anxiety in this regard. First, as I mentioned, as more people are being cared for in the community, the concentration of increasingly disturbed people within psychiatric units has increased and made them more difficult places in which to work for staff and in which to be for patients. That is particularly a problem for young people.
1464
Secondly, in recent years we have become aware that many young people develop psychiatric difficulties not least because of abusive experiences that they have suffered. That was something with which we were less familiar a number of years ago but we are becoming increasingly familiar with the fact that many young people become profoundly disturbed in their behaviour and in themselves because of abusive experiences early in their lives. Indeed, when young people cut themselves, overdose and in other ways attempt to damage themselves, we now always pay attention to the possibility of abuse and particularly of sexual abuse.
Many young people who become disturbed and are taken on for treatment can be dealt with in an out-patient context or in day-patient facilities. But it is commonly the experience of those working with such young people that a period of containment is sometimes necessary in order that the work with them can continue. Sometimes it is only for a short time—perhaps a few days—hut it is nevertheless critical to the work with a young person.
As I said, many of those young people have experienced sexual or physical abuse from adults. They find themselves frequently—I say this not out of speculation, but out of my certain knowledge—having to be admitted to relatively secure facilities in which there are adults who in some cases have perpetrated violent or sexual abuse. Of course there may be concerns as to whether some repetition of the experience may occur, but even setting that to one side, how can one believe that it is not disturbing for a young person who has experienced such abuse and been so disturbed by it that he or she needs psychiatric treatment and who, during that treatment, has become sufficiently disturbed to need to be admitted to a containing atmosphere, to find themselves contained in precisely the same context as those who, with other young people, have been the perpetrators of abuse? They may be perpetrators for a whole series of reasons that we may or may not understand; that is not the point. It is clearly profoundly antitherapeutic.
I appreciate and find encouraging the fact that the Government are looking at these matters. It was suggested that it is not appropriate to deal piecemeal with them but that we need something that is broad—ranging. I accept that there is force in the Minister's argument in that regard. However, is it appropriate that young people should have to wait for a number of years for all the manifest and manifold problems of the service to be addressed and all the different legal requirements to be dealt with? Is it appropriate that they should have to wait or is it the case that, even if the Government do not allow this Bill to pass through the other place, some kind of regulation may be introduced to ensure that young people, particularly disturbed young people, are not continuing to be cared for in a context that is profoundly, and obviously, not in their best therapeutic interests.
In advance of the Minister being able to give us such enlightenment, I strongly support the amendment. I look forward also to seeing whether the Minister can find some other way in which the Government. through

1465
regulation, can ensure that such facilities are insisted upon and made available in all areas. I look forward to hearing what the Minister is able to say.
Earl Howe: Once again my noble friend presented the argument for the amendment most cogently and I support him. The need for separate in-patient facilities for young people is important for two reasons. The first is that young people, especially if they have been abused, need protecting from those who may be potential abusers. That is a principal reason and the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, laid out that argument clearly.
The second is that early diagnosis and early treatment are essential to a successful outcome in cases of severe mental illness. Where a youngster suffers mental trauma, breakdown or something of that kind and needs to go to hospital, the process of treatment and recuperation is immeasurably assisted if the environment in which care is delivered is as conducive as it can be to recovery. The proximity of disturbed adults in a ward where a youngster first arrives to be looked after can pose an unhelpful barrier to the adjustment which that youngster needs to make if he or she is to be given a better chance of being successfully treated.
I hope that the Minister is able to accept at least the principle of the amendment, which addresses itself to the needs of some of the most vulnerable of mental patients, and can give us cause to hope that action will be taken to provide facilities of the kind the amendment seeks to promote.
11.45 a.m.
Lord Swinfen: Although I support the amendment, I wish to ask the Minister a question in relation to line 27 where the provision states,
"the fitting of appropriate security devices to all room and ward doors in all existing psychiatric units".
Does that mean that it will not be necessary in new psychiatric units? It may be that at Report stage we will need to remove the word "existing" from the Bill. Perhaps the Minister will consider the point.
Lord Thurlow: I too strongly support the intention behind the amendment. None of those who listened to the exposition of the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, could fail to be moved by the urgency of taking the necessary steps where there is a risk of a young person finding himself in a ward with someone who might assault him.
I speak with some experience. One of my sons, as a youth and severely schizophrenic, was in and out of big hospitals. He had a great deal of excellent care and I cannot say, in retrospect, that in any of the hospitals he attended there seemed to be any danger of the risks we are discussing today. But that does not mean to say that conditions have not changed on account of the problems of concentration to which the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, referred.
I do not see that there is any reason why the necessary action cannot be taken by the health authorities, with or without—I hope with—the necessary stimulus from the
1466
Department of Health and without further primary legislation. Within the framework of the existing Act there is no reason why, if resources are available and if the will exists, this kind of segregation cannot be made when necessary. I repeat that I have some qualification about the generalisation. I know from experience that a young person can be in a secure ward without being in that sort of danger. However, I am sure that there are many situations where there is a crying need for rectification and for urgent action.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: The Department of Health policy for child and adolescent mental health services is outlined in A handbook on child and adolescent mental health published in 1995. It stresses the importance of developing comprehensive services that span those within primary care through to specialist in-patient settings. A programme of work to implement policy is under way with the lead being taken by the regional offices of the National Health Service Executive.
The Government recommend that young people requiring in-patient mental health care should have access to facilities that are both age appropriate and able to meet their needs effectively. We do not underestimate the problems which the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, so expertly put before us and which the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, expressed from his unequalled personal experience. Young people with mental health needs are treated in a range of settings. It is recognised that, on occasions, particularly in the acute phases of illness, adult psychiatric wards are sometimes required for admission and this may not always be desirable. We would agree with what the noble Lord. Lord Alderdice, had to say on that subject. Young people, however, vary in maturity and degree of independence. The amendment is imprecise, leaving open the definition of "young". Sometimes it will be the psychiatric care required, rather than the chronological age, that will be the determining factor for where best a young person is treated. The amendment, which places a duty on health authorities, will limit flexibility. As the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, so precisely said, in principle, if conditions are right—I do not want to paraphrase the noble Lord—there is nothing that could be objected to in what has been said by noble Lords. However, the amendment places a very precise duty on health authorities and would limit their flexibility.
In recognition of the genuine concern over access to in-patient facilities and the possible need for further guidance, the Department of Health is shortly to commission a national study. It will undertake a needs-based assessment of current in-patient provision, the alternatives that exist, the pathways of care for young people, and an analysis of current and future requirements. This will inform policy and service developments and enable planning into the next century to take place on a rational basis. I hope I am going some way to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, and others that progress in this area does not depend on and hang entirely on legislation either being changed or being introduced.

1467
The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, asked a specific question about the Bill. I think that his question is more correctly addressed to the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, whose Bill this is.
The amendment cannot be supported as to enshrine this duty in legislation will impose unrealistic burdens on health authorities in the immediate future, will reduce flexibility in service provision for young people, and may lead to inappropriate service developments. Those would be better planned after an assessment of the national situation has taken place. We cannot support the amendment.
Lord Alderdice: Before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may welcome strongly the undertaking she has given and the nature of the study. When she speaks of a national study, may I have reassurance that that applies to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland—to the whole of the United Kingdom?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: I shall tell the noble Lord what I think and then write to him if I have to correct myself. I would imagine that this applies to England and Wales. I cannot think that it would apply to Scotland or to Northern Ireland. However, if I am wrong about that, I shall certainly make that clear to all noble Lords.
Lord Alderdice: When we talk about a national health service we assume that it extends to the whole of the United Kingdom. However, the noble Baroness says that a national survey on a matter of this importance would apply only to England and Wales. I very much hope that the answer she has given is either not entirely correct or is one that can perhaps be reviewed.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: As a Scot, I do not want to get into too much detail on this matter. As the noble Lord will know, at the present time health in Scotland is dealt with by the Scottish Office and in the very near future it will be dealt with by the Scottish parliament.
Lord Rowallan: Existing child and adolescent services cater for elective planned admissions and cannot cater for emergency admissions. Every acute psychiatric admission unit is periodically required to admit children because there is no alternative for them. On a ward at Homerton Hospital, which I recently visited, a 13 year-old girl was admitted, mute but aggressive, following a serious sexual assault by her step-father, which I am afraid happens all too often. Nowhere else could or would take her. During her admission she was given illicit drugs by other patients and was herself subjected to sexual harassment and assault. That is disgraceful and should not be allowed to happen. It is small wonder that the professionals involved do not wish to carry on maintaining and working in such a service if we allow that sort of thing to happen. We cannot sit back and allow this to go on. How many more 13 year-olds or 14 year-olds have to be seriously harassed and abused in mental health hospitals, where they are supposed to be receiving treatment, before we do something? I beg to move.
1468
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Government of Wales Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Business Improvement Districts Bill [H.L.]
11.59 a.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Business Improvement District (Election) Orders]:
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1 line 10, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) Subject to subsection (3) below, a local authority may make an election order for any area —

(a) which is wholly comprised within the area of the authority, and constitutes the whole or part of the area in which the establishment of a business improvement district is proposed; or

(b) in relation to which the authority are discharging the functions of another local authority as respects the establishment of a business improvement district.

(3) The applicant for an election order must he a ratepayer in respect of a hereditament within the area for which the election order is proposed.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak to Amendment No. 23. I hope that the House will bear with me for a moment if 1 follow the example of the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, at Committee stage when she craved the indulgence of the House to make a general point near the beginning of that stage (Hansard, 27/2/98; col. 886.). After some introductory remarks, she made two specific points, and I wish to refer to one of them. At col. 887 she said,
"It is clear that under the provisions of the Bill, businesses in an area will have to pay a certain amount if there has been a local vote to that effect. Although individual businesses will have the opportunity to vote, they will not have a choice on payment of the charge if the decision is taken to implement the draft scheme. As I am sure the Committee will recognise, this is exactly analogous to the taxation system in any democratic country. We can influence the level of income tax via the ballot, but there is no choice on whether or not to pay. This is, by definition, a tax and spending of the income received would count as public expenditure".
At the time I questioned that statement. Since then I have had the advantage of advice from some financial experts in this country. I have been able to study the European system of accounts to which the noble Baroness referred on that occasion. But perhaps most important, I have had the advantage of a meeting with the noble Baroness, for which I am immensely grateful. She was accompanied by a formidable group of officials not only from the DTI, but from the Treasury and from the Office of National Statistics.
I believe that it would be fair to say that we did not attempt to resolve the issue as to whether a charge under this Bill is a tax and the spending of it would count as public expenditure. But I believe that we reached an understanding that, first, it would be right to proceed with the remaining stages of the Bill in this House (and we are here today to deal with the Report stage), secondly, that it would be for another place to take account of the argument perhaps by requiring a privilege Motion to be moved in the ordinary way; thirdly, that if expenditure by a BID company is indeed public expenditure that still leaves open the question as to whether it should be treated as part of what is called in the jargon "the control total"; and, fourthly, and perhaps most important of all, the Government's forthcoming consultation paper on the local government financial system, which we were told will include options for business rates, will certainly be germane and may well be directly relevant to the issue. So I do not intend to say any more about it at this stage, but to follow the understanding that the noble Baroness and I reached that we should proceed with the Bill.
I move straightaway to Amendment No. 1. A number of points were raised during Committee stage, many of which we have tried to meet with the amendments which I have tabled. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that a local authority may make an election order where the area concerned is within its boundaries or outside those boundaries; where the authority is acting on behalf of another local authority; or—and this is the substantive change made by the amendment—where the authorities are acting jointly through, for example, a joint committee. That arrangement may be appropriate in some cases where, for example, there is a substantial area in two or more local authority areas and none of them wish to release the task of processing the business improvement district's application to the other. The amendment is intended to cater for the joint arrangements in such cases.
The new subsection retains the requirement that the applicant for an election order must be a ratepayer of the hereditament in the area in which the BID is being proposed. Since Committee stage I have had the advantage of visiting one or two areas which I was told would be wholly applicable to this Bill. I have heard of others. I believe that at Second Reading I mentioned the Park Royal estate in West London which is within the area of three different local authorities. So the amendment is intended to deal with a point that was raised. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am grateful for the further work that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, has undertaken to refine the Bill. I have no comments on this particular amendment although it appears to envisage separate orders for the different areas it mentions. However, in considering the amendments which have been laid today, the House may wish to have confirmed that discussions were held with the noble Lord following Committee stage. The Government's view that the charges imposed by a BID company would be treated as a tax and the income
1470
raised would count as public expenditure, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said, together with the fact that we are still awaiting the Government's paper on the review of local government finance, which I believe will be issued imminently, mean that we cannot give the Bill our support.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 [Application for election order]:
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 12, at end insert (", subject to subsection (4A) below,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 3 and 21. Amendment No. 2 is a paving amendment and the substantive amendment is Amendment No. 3, which inserts a new subsection into the clause.
The purpose of the new subsection (4A) is to deal with the situation where the maximum business improvement district charge proposed exceeds 5 per cent. It will be recalled that in Committee there was some debate about the desirability of allowing for that without requiring all the businesses paying BID charges to agree to the increase as the Bill provides at present.
However, there is a difficulty in allowing a proposal for a further increase beyond 5 per cent., on the basis of agreement by a majority of businesses, even with a majority of three-quarters of participating businesses, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, suggested in her amendment at Committee stage. Those businesses which had not been in favour of setting up the BID, but which were outvoted, would find themselves subject to additional charges without further scrutiny if the Bill was simply to provide that the percentage could be increased further once a bid was established.
Such an arrangement might also open the door to some indiscipline over the assessment of costs incurred when a scheme is put forward. So subsection (4A) allows for such an increase, but only where the application to set up a business improvement district is in fact for the continuation of an existing scheme. Adopting that mechanism ensures that the proposal is subjected to further scrutiny by the local authority and further representations from interested parties, as well as giving all the businesses concerned a vote as to whether a scheme should be confirmed on such a basis. It may be that where a scheme is seen to be successful and there is an impetus to continue it, a large majority of businesses will be receptive to the possibility of an increased charge. That is a prospect that ought to be assessed with the same level of protection which applies to initial applications.
The amendment to omit Clause 14 is tabled because the issue raised there is now being dealt with under the new subsection. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, while recognising the efforts made by the noble Lord to give BID companies, in proposing the continuation of a BID

1471
scheme, a greater degree of latitude in raising funds, noble Lords may wish to consider whether unlimited charges would be desirable.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, has responded to a concern that I voiced in Committee. To a large extent, my amendment was probing and I was not persuaded by it, but I was concerned about how increases might be dealt with and whether appropriate and perhaps small increases could be prevented by a small number of chargepayers. I remain somewhat concerned because there seems to be no top limit to the amount of the increase.
We have heard from the Government that the Bill is fated to run up against the buffers, but that it will no doubt form part of the discussions when your Lordships are considering business rates in the context of the forthcoming Green Paper. I think that there is still some mileage to go in how one deals with possible increases, but I recognise the efforts which the noble Lord has made to deal with this point.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may respond. I am well aware that there are certain obstacles in the way of the Bill making a great deal of progress in another place. Nevertheless, as I said at Second Reading, the idea of a business improvement district (with some mechanism for requiring all business ratepayers within the area to pay if a two-thirds majority support the Bill) has attracted much interest and there is now a good deal more steam behind the idea.
Earlier this week, a number of us in an all-party group concerned with London listened to a fascinating talk on the subject of London theatres and some of their problems. We were interested to learn that London theatres very much support a BID on the lines of what happens in New York as a means of increasing the attractiveness of the theatre area to patrons. I was up in Walsall last week where strenuous efforts are being made by the East Mercia Chamber of Commerce, with the support of the local authority, to upgrade some of the rather run-down industrial areas near the railway and canal, with some exciting projects. They, too, would very much welcome the Bill.
That is why I make no excuse for pressing ahead, while recognising that the scheme may have to wait for another piece of legislation. In the mean time, the amendment offers a way ahead if the Bill makes progress. There will no doubt be other opportunities to look at the detailed points which have been raised by the two noble Baronesses. I commend the amendment to the House.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, my noble friend's amendment addresses a problem to which we referred in Committee. If a business improvement district has been established and if unanimity were required for its continuation, some very good work might come to an end in short time. If I understand the amendment correctly, it seems that an application for an extension is subject to the same vote as an original application
1472
and, therefore, requires the same majority of business ratepayers to be in favour. In that respect, I am content to support the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am sorry if the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, misunderstood me. My comments were directed to this amendment, not to the principle. My concern was about the apparent lack of a cap—although perhaps I am the last person in this Chamber who should be calling for a cap—to the total of the business charge as incorporated in this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2. line 29, at end insert—
("(4A1 Where an application under this section is for the continuation of a business improvement district scheme, or for the continuation of a scheme subject to such modifications as may be proposed in the draft scheme accompanying the application, the maximum annual business improvement district charge proposed under the draft scheme may exceed 5 per centum and shall be the figure proposed by the applicant.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
12.15 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1 line 37, leave out ("3(1) and (2)") and insert ("3").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 4, I should like to discuss also Amendments Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 10. Amendment No. 5, which seeks to insert new Clause 3, makes it clear that in considering an application for a BID a local authority should have regard to interested persons generally, quite apart from the specific attention to be paid to the representations of the interested parties which are mentioned specifically in paragraphs (a) to (e). The interests which are to be given specific consideration by the local authority have also been broadened to include—at paragraph (b)—businesses located outside the area of the proposed BID but which would be affected by it, and any interested public authority, which we call a "relevant authority", which we seek to define in Clause 30 by means of Amendment No. 27, which we are also considering with this group, as I should have made clear earlier.
The reason for employing that term may need some explanation. As defined, "local authority" means a billing authority, and will generally be a district authority, a London borough or the City of London Corporation. That is natural enough because the applicants for BID schemes ought naturally to be the authorities which keep non-domestic rating lists—and they are the billing authorities. They do not include such authorities as county councils and police authorities, all of which may provide services or undertake initiatives in the area of a proposed BID. They therefore could be said to have a particular interest in an application, and it seems right that those areas should be given particular consideration along with the other categories referred to in the clause. Therefore, the definition of "relevant authority" used in the Bill is the same as that in Part V of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.

1473
That is the definition deployed for the purposes of revenue accounts and capital financing of local authorities. It seems to me to be the most appropriate definition to catch the appropriate authorities consistent with keeping the notification process within reasonable bounds.
The amendment has been tabled in response to specific criticisms made in Committee and I hope that the House will feel that it meets the case. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I note and welcome the work carried out by the noble Lord to clarify and widen the scope of the representations that can be submitted to the local authority as part of its consideration of a draft BID scheme. A concern remains that the clause, as amended, would mean that the Bill contains no reference to the timescale for making such representations. Does the noble Lord propose to deal with that at a later stage?
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I would hope that any such details might be most appropriately dealt with in another place. If we have to embark on yet further amendments at Third Reading, I can conceive of there being some procedural difficulties. I thoroughly take the Minister's point, but I would much prefer to leave such matters for proceedings in another place. However, I hope that this amendment can he accepted and I commend it to the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 [Consideration of application]:
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 5:
Leave out Clause 3 and insert the following new clause—
CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION
(". In considering a draft scheme a local authority shall have regard to such representations as may be made by interested persons, and in particular by—

(a) any ratepayer in respect of a hereditament within the area specified in the draft scheme;

(b) any ratepayer in respect of a hereditament not within the area specified in the draft scheme but which is affected by the improvements which are proposed by it;

(c) any other person in respect of such a hereditament, being a person having an interest in that hereditament in any capacity;

(d) any person who is either resident within the area specified in the draft scheme, or is not so resident but is affected by the improvements which are proposed by it; and

(e) any relevant authority.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [Making of election order]:
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendments Nos. 6 and 7:
Page 3, line 13, leave out from beginning to third ("the").
Page 3, line 14, leave out ("within that period").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 3, line 31, after ("above") insert ("and any determination the authority propose to make under subsection (6) below").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No, 8 and speak also to Amendments Nos. 11 and 12. Amendments Nos. 8 and 12 which are linked deal with the potential exclusion of small businesses from liability to business improvement district charges. This was one of the major topics of discussion at Committee stage in relation to an amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. The desirability of providing some mechanism for excluding such small firms from liability was in general accepted. The mechanism is not however a straightforward one. Simply to provide, as one might have done, a minimum rateable value below which businesses would not be liable to pay BID charges, or would be liable to reduced charges, would be very inflexible. In addition, it would catch different categories of businesses according to the general level of rateable values in the areas in which they were located. In an area with low rateable values sizeable businesses might find themselves excluded when they should be paying. The same exemption threshold in areas of very high rateable values might exempt only the very smallest of businesses.
Amendment No. 12 seeks to address this by enabling the local authority to determine an exemption or abatement of charge. This local approach will enable the category of small businesses at which exemption is aimed to be more accurately identified on an area-by-area basis. When this scheme is put to the local authority with a view to asking it to hold a ballot and invoke the procedure in every case I expect the promoters of the scheme to have made very clear proposals as to the appropriate level of exemption. But it would be for the local authority to decide whether that level of exemption was satisfactory or should be varied.
Amendment No. 11 requires the local authority to inform the BID applicant if it proposes to exempt small businesses by a determination provided for in another amendment. Such action may prompt the applicant to reconsider pursuing his application if the result of the exemption is that the scheme will have significantly fewer contributors than he originally envisaged. That he can do; he can withdraw his application. The procedure now exists under which there can be an exemption for small businesses. The decision as to where the line should be drawn—there may be more than one line; there may be a line for an abated contribution—is made by the local authority and the applicant can decide, in the light of that, whether he still wishes to proceed. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for markedly improving my amendment moved at the previous stage. I too had concluded that it was not possible to be prescriptive in terms of amount or proportion with regard to the exemption of small businesses. The noble Lord's amendment is more comprehensive than mine, and I certainly welcome it.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, we recognise that this amendment builds on suggestions made at Committee stage by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I am grateful for the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I hope to reciprocate in a moment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 3, line 32, leave out ("thinks") and insert ("considers reasonable and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 9. I say straight away that this was a very good point raised at Committee stage by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. It requires the modification sought by the local authority to be both reasonable and necessary in the opinion of the authority. The noble Baroness makes a very good point and I hope that this amendment meets it.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, one hopes that a local authority would never wish to make any modifications unless it believed that they were reasonable. No doubt the intention of the noble Lord is to make the Bill more flexible in this respect. We would query however whether in the interests of flexibility it is desirable for modifications to be necessary as well as reasonable. We wonder whether the noble Lord would be prepared to look again at this aspect of the Bill.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I simply remind the noble Baroness of the remarks that I made a few moments ago. Of course, account can be taken of the point that she has made if the Bill makes progress in another place. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 3, line 34. leave out ("subsection 3(1)") and insert ("section 3").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 3, line 46, leave out from ("above,") to end of line and insert ("or the local authority have made, or propose to make, a determination under subsection (6) below which is relevant to the application, the local authority shall inform the applicant in writing of the modifications or determination (as the case may be)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 3, line 47, at end insert—
("(6) The local authority may determine that any hereditament whose rateable value as shown on the local non-domestic rating list does not exceed an amount specified by the local authority shall be—

(a) exempt from the payment of business improvement district charges; or

(b) subject to an abatement of such charges,

and the determination may make different provision for exemption or abatement as respects different rateable values.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 [Provisional BID charge list]:
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 4, line 5, leave out from ("hereditaments") to end of line 7 and insert ("whose ratepayers will, subject to such modifications as may have been required under section 4(3), be scheme charge payers in accordance with section 2(4)(b).").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 13. That is intended to make clear that the obligation on a local authority to prepare a BID charge list relates to the premises of the ratepayers who have been identified by the person who wishes to set up a BID as the prospective contributors. As the Bill stands it could be read as requiring the local authority to compile a complete list of hereditaments in the area, which would not be sensible. The amendment also takes into account the fact that the businesses identified by the person proposing to set up a BID and listed in his draft scheme may have been modified by the authority as a result of its consideration of the application under Clause 4(3). I believe that this represents a procedural improvement and I hope that the House will feel able to accept it.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, it is important it should be clear who is to pay the charge but in so far as it is suggested that Clause 2(4) has the effect of imposing it, I feel bound to question this. The noble Lord may wish to look again at the drafting and the way in which the Bill creates liability for the charge.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I shall take note of the points just raised by the noble Baroness. Perhaps the House would accept the amendment for the time being.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 8 [Method of voting]:
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 5. line 17, leave out ("incorporate") and insert run ("unincorporate").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 14, which seeks to leave out "incorporate" and insert "unincorporate". This is a technical amendment to make clear that in the case of unincorporated bodies a voting paper may be completed by an officer of the body concerned.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, this appears to be a sensible correction.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 9 [Services etc provided by local authority]:
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 15:
Leave out Clause 9 and insert the following new clause—
SERVICES PROVIDED BY RELEVANT AUTHORITY
(" .—(1) Subject to subsection (3) below, improvements made through the implementation of a business improvement district scheme shall be taken as being in addition to and not in substitution for the level of services delivered by or on behalf of a relevant authority in the discharge of their functions, and accordingly—

(a) in deciding whether to make, or to refuse to make, an election order under section 4(1);

(b) in coming to an opinion that such an order should he refused under section 4(2); or

1477

(c) in requiring modifications to a draft scheme under section 4(3),

a local authority shall assume the provision of the existing level of services in the area for which the business improvement district scheme is proposed.
(2) In considering the level of services to be provided or maintained in the discharge of their functions, a relevant authority shall not treat any area less favourably by reason of the improvements which are or will be made in that area through the implementation of a business improvement district scheme.
(3) Nothing in this section shall be taken as prejudicing the operation of section 70 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 (functions of local authorities): but where, pursuant to an order made under that section, services are delivered by a BID company, such services shall he treated as being in substitution for the services which would, but for the order, be delivered by the relevant authority.
(4) In this section "the existing level of services" is the level of services which is provided at the time of an application for an election order under section 2.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 15, which seeks to insert a new clause. I should like to speak to Amendment No. 16 which also seeks to insert a new clause. This amendment involves a good deal of redrafting. The intention is to deal with the difficult area of additionality. Here one is concerned with a situation in which if a BID is set up, the improvements should not just replace what the local authority would otherwise have done but should be additional to them.
This issue generated a good deal of interest in Committee. The new clause seeks to deal with a situation in which improvements proposed by a BID scheme are, for example, intended as a top-up of services which the local authority provides. There are a number of existing examples where precisely this kind of activity takes place. In a BID area people want a higher standard of street cleaning, pavement cleaning and lighting and better visual amenities. They may want greater security. The local authority may already provide some of that. What the BID seeks to do is to provide an improved and enhanced level of service for which the ratepayers are prepared to pay.
It is clearly inappropriate that a local authority should use a BID proposal simply as a way of offloading its own responsibility for providing the services by reducing them or progressively withdrawing them on the basis that the business improvement district company is going to provide them instead. The new clause therefore provides that in considering the application for a BID they should assume the level of services that they are providing at the time the application is made. That, as it were, is the baseline. It is in comparison with the baseline that the improvements have to be weighed. That of course does not deal with what might happen once the BID is actually set up.
As I think I said at an earlier stage, it might well be ridiculous to have, for instance, two separate processes for collecting the refuse or for sweeping the streets. A local authority might decide to withdraw services after the BID is established on the basis that the BID will take the strain, but if it were to reduce services not as a result of its establishment but as part of a general reduction, perhaps in a period of financial stringency, it would clearly be inappropriate for the BID district to be
1478
protected by requiring the local authority to maintain the level of services when it was actually reducing them everywhere else.
To deal with this type of situation, subsection (2) provides that the local authority shall not treat the area less favourably than any other area of the authority simply on account of the BID's existence: in other words, the area of the BID is neither privileged nor discriminated against when it comes to the provision of local authority services.
But the clause is without prejudice to the ability of the local authority and BID company to agree together that, for instance, the BID company would exercise the functions of the local authority where an order under Section 70 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act has been made. This provision replicates an amendment which was tabled and accepted in Committee, but of course it is not only the local authorities, as defined by the Bill as billing authorities for the purposes of non-domestic rates, which provide services. That is why it is necessary once again to refer to "relevant authority". I shall not repeat what I said on the earlier amendment. It takes account not only of the local authority which is the billing authority but those others which I referred to on that amendment.
The second amendment, the new clause following Clause 9, deals with what might be described as capital works proposed by BID schemes. Such proposals, typically, for example, planters, street furniture and so on, may also be on the local authority's agenda, but it will be understandable for a local authority to remove such proposals from its forward plan once a BID came along with a plan to make the improvements. That would seem perhaps to be undesirable.
On one view, such a consequence recognises that businesses which want improvement now rather perhaps than three or four years down the tracks would have to pay for that advantage, but in any event it would seem right that an authority which is contemplating improvements when a BID application is made should at least be required to inform the applicant that improvements are in the pipeline. That knowledge may prompt the applicant to delay setting up a BID or wait to see what the local authority actually does. Therefore what the clause provides is a notification procedure. The requirement to notify applies to the relevant authority which means that the obligation is not confined to the local authority to which the application is made, and, as I said, takes account of the fact that other authorities may have relevant capital works in mind.
The fact that a relevant authority may have provided facilities given time, may even have had plans to start work on them, will also seem to demand at least consideration by that authority of the making of a financial contribution to the cost of the BID, and to have them in contemplation, the authority must, after all, have seen a public benefit.
So these two clauses together cover a range of issues which may well arise on the application of a BID where there is work in contemplation, and where the local authority might therefore wish to have regard to that and must notify the BID applicant. The second clause seeks

1479
to deal with the situation by requiring the relevant authority to consider the making of a financial contribution where in the opinion of the authority it is likely that the improvements would have been made, or at least started, in the period during which the proposed BID will be in existence. I beg to move.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for bringing forward amendments to address the situation of additionality, and, in particular, capital. If one is looking at local areas, it is important that businesses wishing to combine through the purpose of a BID to bring forward relatively small capital improvements, which can in small district shopping centres make a remarkable difference, should be able to do so. The amendment represents safeguards. It enables that to happen but it also safeguards the position of the local authority's programme and the possibility of a contribution. Therefore I welcome the amendment.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I welcome Amendment No. 15. moved by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, to address the difficult question of ensuring that moneys raised by the BID company are directed at extra services to those provided by a relevant authority. However, as I said in Committee there is a real difficulty in fixing a level of service, and assessing how a level of service can be sensibly measured and maintained over a number of years.
Amendment No. 15 provides that the "existing level of service" is the level of services which are provided at the time of an application for an election order. However, in its consideration of the BID application it is not clear how the local authority will ensure that improvements to be undertaken during the life of the BID company would be in addition to those that the local authority or other relevant authority would carry Out.
I welcome the principles of Amendment No. 16 proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding. It goes some way to encourage local partnerships and ensure that improvement schemes are not duplicated. However, the amendment seems to place the BID applicant in a position of uncertainty as there is no timescale by which the exchanges of information between the local authority and other relevant authority must be completed.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I understand the points that the noble Baroness has made. I think it is possible in these sorts of cases to be altogether too prescriptive and, indeed, if you have a local authority which is in discussion with a BID applicant, I have no doubt that these are matters which can be dealt with.
If the relations have reached the point where strict timetables, and so on, are necessary, the suggestion I would make is that that does not provide a very good augury for a satisfactory partnership, but I think the clause as it stands is quite workable. I am grateful for the support that it has received, particularly from my noble friend on the Front Bench. I hope that the House
1480
will be able to accept it. If, on further reflection, further changes would be necessary they no doubt can be introduced in another place.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 16:
After Clause 9, insert the following new clause—
NOTIFICATION WITH RESPECT TO FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS
(" .—(1) On receipt of an application for an election order made under section 2, the local authority shall send to any other relevant authority appearing to them to have an interest the name and address of the applicant and the particulars of the improvements proposed under the draft scheme.
(2) A relevant authority notified under subsection (1) above shall forthwith notify the local authority in writing—

(a) of any proposals for improvements which are the same as, or substantially the same as, the improvements proposed under the draft scheme, or

(b) that there are no such proposals.

(3) Before making an election order, the local authority shall inform the applicant in writing of any proposals notified to them under subsection (2) above or any proposals for improvements to be made by them which are the same as, or substantially the same as, the proposals in the draft scheme.
(4) To the extent that any proposed improvements of which the applicant has been informed under subsection (3) above are, in the opinion of the authority proposing the improvements, likely to have been made, or had work commenced on them, in the period specified by the applicant as the proposed duration of the business improvement district scheme, that authority shall forthwith—

(a) consider making such financial contribution to the cost of the improvements proposed under the draft scheme as is appropriate in the circumstances of the case; and

(b) following such consideration, notify the applicant of the decision in writing.

(5) Where the authority referred to in subsection (4) above are not the local authority to which the application for an election order was made, they shall forthwith notify that authority of the decision in writing.
(6) Where a local authority have notified any other relevant authority under subsection (1) above, no election order shall be made unless notification pursuant to subsection (5) above has been received by the local authority.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 11 [Formation and functions of BID company]:
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 6, line 3, at end insert—
("() No BID company shall be formed or constituted in such a way as to be a company controlled by, or subject to, the influence of a local authority within the meaning of Part V of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (companies in which local authorities have interests).").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment I propose to discuss Amendments Nos. 24 and 25. Amendment No. 17 to Clause 11 prevents a BID company from being set up in such a way as to make it a company controlled by, or subject to, the local authority's influence. This term is defined in Part V of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.
The result, if a BID company were to be controlled or influenced, would be to treat the expenditure of the BID company as though it were the local authority's. This would result in a substantial constraint on the BID company and plainly affect the expenditure plans of the

1481
local authority, too. This is a different point from that which I mentioned at the start of today's proceedings. It is a necessary technical amendment to avoid what would otherwise be a considerable difficulty.
The consequence of the amendment is that local authority participation in a BID company board will be limited. However, that does not preclude the involvement of local authorities and existing partnership arrangements under town centre management schemes. In fact, they often mirror the minority interest which is required to avoid the operation of Part V. The point is independent of whether the expenditure is general public expenditure.
The new clause after Clause 29 takes account of the fact that "local authority" as defined in the Bill is not the same as for the purpose of Part V of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 which was referred to in Clause 11, as amended. The amendment to Clause 30 is a consequence of defining "local authority" separately in the new clause following Clause 29.
These complicated different definitions appear to be necessary because one is having to make use of existing local government legislation which has been drawn up with a variety of different purposes in mind. Nevertheless, I hope that the amendment is clear and workable and I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I support the intention of Amendment No. 17 to ensure that the BID company is not controlled by or under the influence of the local authority. Perhaps the noble Lord may wish to consider whether the clause will meet its aims at all times, in particular after the company has been launched.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I agree to take note of that important point.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 6, line 9, at end insert—
("() A BID company shall, in discharging its functions, have regard to the interests of scheme chargepayers.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, a point of accountability was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, in Committee. The amendment is designed to enhance the accountability of the BID company to the chargepayers. The effect of the amendment is to require the company to have regard to the interests of all scheme chargepayers in implementing the scheme. Clause 30 contains a definition of scheme chargepayers. I hope that that goes some way toward meeting the Minister's concerns. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am pleased that this amendment makes it clear that the BID company should, in carrying out its work, have regard to the interests of the scheme chargepayers. However, noble Lords may wish to consider whether this provides sufficient accountability to the chargepayers. I fear that
1482
the concerns about accountability that I raised in Committee would remain valid, despite the praiseworthy intention behind the amendment.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, we have given careful consideration to whether the measure should go further. I remind the House that we are dealing with a company which will be subject to all the provisions of the companies Acts. Those Acts provide elaborate procedures for making the company and its management accountable to the shareholders and to a growing number of stakeholders. On reflection, the amendment which I have moved, and which the noble Baroness has welcomed, adds sufficient to the statutory accountability which already exists to make any further amendment to the Bill unnecessary. I hope that on reflection the Minister will recognise that.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 13 [Business improvement district charge]:
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 6, line 20, at end insert—
("() The liability of a person from whom a business improvement district charge is demanded shall be assessed as though the charge were a non-domestic rate in respect of a hereditament shown on the non-domestic rating list in force at the time the demand is made.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 19 I shall discuss Amendment No. 26. In Committee, specific reference was made by the noble Baroness to the relationship of BID charges to the local government finance system as a whole. As I and the noble Baroness have indicated, the matter is under review and we are expecting a consultation paper in due course. However, the amendments seek in part to clarify the basis of liability to a BID charge. Amendment No. 19 treats the liability of a person to a business improvement district charge in the same way as a liability to a local non-domestic rate. In other words, for a ratepayer in occupation of premises within a BID it provides for liability on a day-to-day basis, just as the ratepayer is liable for non-domestic rates. The consequence of the amendment is that liability to BID charges follows liability to non-domestic rates set out in Part III of the Local Government Finance Act 1988.
Amendment No. 26 changes the definition of "ratepayer" to refer to a person who is liable to a non-domestic rate. That more appropriately aligns the definition with the rating legislation and makes clear that it is liability to rather than payment of a rate to which liability to BID charges relates. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords. I can appreciate what the noble Lord is trying to achieve with Amendment No. 19. The Bill envisages a close link between liability to the charge and liability to non-domestic rates. However, the present amendment seems to leave unanswered a number of issues upon which the noble Lord may wish to reflect. For example, he might want to consider how the Bill should address the effect of changes to hereditaments; what happens when a new hereditament comes into being; and the

1483
treatment of unoccupied hereditaments. These and other related matters will need to be addressed if the Bill proceeds further.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, as the Minister responds to many of the amendments, I at least recognise that if a Bill of this kind is to reach the statute book it will require the attention of parliamentary counsel and of the experts in the various departments concerned. That is normal procedure. The noble Baroness has made it abundantly clear on more than one occasion, both in public and private, that she does not expect this Bill to reach the statute book. In those circumstances, I entirely understand the reluctance of the Government to place parliamentary counsel at the disposal of myself and my supporters.
I take note of the point that she made and if at a later stage, or perhaps in future legislation, these points need to be dealt with they can be. In the meantime, I commend the amendment to the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Jenkin of Boding Lord Jenkin of Boding moved Amendment No. 20:
After Clause 13. insert the following new clause—
LEASES
(".—(1) This section applies where premises are let to a person ("the tenant") who, by reason of his occupation of those premises, is or becomes liable to a business improvement district charge.
(2) Where the tenant alleges that the level of rent which will become payable to the person from whom the premises are let ("the owner") on the grant of a further tenancy or on a review of an existing tenancy is attributable to the improvements provided for by the business improvement district scheme, the tenant may, in the absence of agreement with the owner as to the level of rent payable, apply to the county court.
(3) Where an application is made under subsection (2) above, the county court may, after hearing the parties and any witnesses they desire to call, and having regard to the terms of any contract between the parties and the length of time which the tenant has been liable to the BID charge, make such an order as it considers just and equitable in the circumstances of the case.
(4) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (3) above, the court may make an order which provides—

(a) that the rent payable by the tenant shall not take account of any enhancement of value attributable to the improvements provided for by the business improvement district scheme; or

(b) that the whole or part of the charge shall be borne by the owner.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment addresses an issue which was discussed at length in Committee when I tabled a new clause but withdrew it. The clause provides a mechanism by which landlords and tenants can resolve their differences through a mutual forum when the tenant takes the view that improvements result in an enhancement of the landlord's interests and the parties are unable to agree how to split the charge, or when the tenant takes the view that the landlord has profited unfairly from the improvements which have at least in part been paid for by the tenant through rent increases.
Whether that situation arises will depend on the nature of the improvements provided by the BID scheme. However, it may be that the tenant is put in a position where the establishment of a BID scheme to which he contributes results in a general improvement in the area and then the landlord seeks to enhance the rental at the next rent review or when a new lease is applied for. The amendment addresses that situation by allowing the tenant to apply to the county court, which is given a broad power to make an order which is just and equitable in the circumstances.
The court's attention is directed specifically by the clause to the possibility of disregard in relation to rent payable which is attributable to improvements made by the BID or a contribution by the landlord to the BID charge itself.
The House will note that a relevant feature in deciding whether the landlord should contribute is the length of time for which the tenant has been liable for the BID charge. This new clause as now drafted would not, for example, permit a new tenant simply to go off to the court and seek a contribution from the owner. The application will arise only at the next rent review or on the granting of a new lease when the length of time for which that tenant has been in occupation and paying hid charges will be considered.
I suggest that the use of a county court rather than arbitration to settle the issue is appropriate because the improvements provided under a BID are not restricted to the occupier who applies but are improvements affecting the area as a whole. The House will remember that the county court already has jurisdiction in relation to the granting of new leases in cases where the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 applies, as it does to most commercial leases. Specific precedent for the use of the county court as a forum to deal with disputes over the level of contributions is provided by Section 170 of the Factories Act 1961, to which I referred in Committee.
Finally, one of the criticisms of the clause tabled in Committee related to the provision for the lease to be determined. I accepted those criticisms. I believe that the noble Baroness used the word "draconian" and we have abandoned that proposal because we do not wish to appear draconian. Therefore, that provision does not appear in this proposed new clause.
I believe that we have gone a long way towards meeting the criticisms which were addressed in relation to what is a real issue. We have provided a procedure whereby justice can be done between landlords and tenants where there is a BID. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, we welcome the efforts made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, to address the question of providing equity between landlords and tenants as regards the financial contribution to the cost of BID schemes and the consequential effect of schemes on rental income and costs.
With regard to the specific amendment, we have a concern about the amount of litigation which may arise and the burden on the courts. The amendment contains

1485
little guidance to the courts. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, may wish to explore the use of other mechanisms which may avoid the need to go to court. He may wish to consider whether it would be possible to incorporate the principles implied by the amendment in the normal mechanism for determining rents at rent review or on the renewal of the tenancy.
In addition to the very lengthy consultation which I know the noble Lord has already undertaken, he may find it helpful to seek the views of professional bodies such as the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, that is a very valuable suggestion. Of course we have been in contact with that profession. I thought that perhaps the precedents provided by the legislation which I mentioned—the Landlord and Tenant Act and the Factories Act—might have provided a suitable precedent. But of course that will be looked at if the Bill proceeds in another place. In the meantime, I believe that this proposal provides an appropriate procedure and I hope that the House may be able to accept the amendment. I commend it to the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 14 [Alteration of business improvement district charges]:
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 21:
Leave out Clause 14.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 [Recovery of business improvement district charges]:
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 6, line 35, after ("recover") insert ("as a civil debt").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment provides that a BID charge may be recovered as a civil debt. There was some suggestion that a BID charge might be deemed to be a local non-domestic rate for the purposes of collection and recovery. I believe that the noble Baroness suggested that in Committee.
On reflection, that seems to be a rather heavy-handed way of dealing with the issue. As it is the company which would receive the money, it seems perfectly reasonable that it might look upon it as a civil debt.
However, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has announced a review of civil debt procedure, of which I have taken careful note. No doubt if the procedure is reviewed and this provision is on the statute book at the time, it will be covered by the review. In the meantime, to provide that it should be recoverable as a civil debt seems to me to be a sensible way of dealing with the matter. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, this seems a sensible amendment to achieve the end proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 29 [Local authority discharge of functions]:
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 9, line 6, at end insert—
("() In this Act, reference to the discharge of the functions of a local authority by another local authority includes reference to the discharge of those functions jointly.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 24:
After Clause 29, insert the following new clause—
INTERPRETATION OF "L0CAL AUTHORITY"
(". In this Act, other than in section 11 so far as that section relates to Part V of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (companies in which local authorities have interests), "local authority" means a billing authority as defined in section 1(2) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, responsible for the maintenance of a non-domestic rating list pursuant to section 41 of the 1988 Act.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 30 [Interpretation]:
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 9, leave out lines 23 to 26.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 9, line 36. leave out ("subject to") and insert ("liable to pay").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 9, line 36, at end insert—
(""relevant authority" means a local authority within the meaning of Part IV of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (revenue accounts and capital finance of local authorities);").
On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Chancellor (Tenure of Office)(Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
12.55 p.m.
Lord Alderdice: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Alderdice.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne)in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Office of Lord Chancellor]:
Lord Alderdice Lord Alderdice moved the amendment:
Page 1, line 9, at end insert—
("(3) At the end of section 2 insert—
"Where the Lord Chancellor is not an adherent of the Roman Catholic faith the power to make provision under this section may only be exercised with the agreement of the Lord Chancellor."").
The noble Lord said: The amendment which I put forward to the Bill is an attempt to address two concerns which were raised on Second Reading. The first was that the Lord Chancellor might be liable to have removed from him functions described in Section 2 of the 1974 Act, even though the Lord Chancellor might be quite content and legally without bar in exercising those various functions. The functions are not particularly large but they are not without significance. They are that the Lord Chancellor shall be a church commissioner and shall exercise certain patronage.
I make it clear that there was no purpose in bringing forward the Bill that there should be removed from the Lord Chancellor any of those rights or privileges which he might rightfully fulfil and might in all conscience fulfil. But as the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, pointed out on Second Reading, there was a previous Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, of whom it was public knowledge that because of his deep religious principles and the fact that he was not a member of the Church of England, he did struggle. There was some discussion whether he should properly, from the point of view of his own conscience, fulfil some of the requirements of the Lord Chancellor's office. In the event, he decided that it was perfectly proper for him to do so.
I suggest that there may be others not of a Christian faith, not of any faith at all, indeed perhaps someone who was not particularly warm towards faith, who might feel that it was not proper for him to be a church commissioner or to exercise ecclesiastical functions. As I understand it, as things stand, there is no provision in law for the functions to which I have referred to be exercised by anyone else.
In my own view, the original Bill as put forward was permissive in any case. It did not say that such functions would be removed or that they "shall be removed", but that. other arrangements "may be made". In that sense, it simply takes on from the language of the 1974 Act; namely, that Her Majesty in Council may provide for those visitational or ecclesiastical functions to be exercised by the Prime Minister or other Minister.
However, it appeared on Second Reading that there was a feeling among a number of noble Lords that the Lord Chancellor might be liable to have these functions removed. As part of the whole purpose of the Bill is to give clarification on the matter—and certainly not to give offence or difficulty—I have put forward the amendment now before the Committee to try to ensure, as can be seen in the terms of the amendment, that the matter will only be exercised,
"with the agreement of the Lord Chancellor".
I trust that there will be an appreciation that this is to ensure that not only is there no legal bar by nature of religious profession, or the absence of religious profession, to anyone exercising the office of Lord Chancellor, but also that there is no reasonable bar of conscience to someone exercising the office of Lord Chancellor.
The question was raised on Second Reading whether the Bill was necessary. A number of noble Lords called in aid remarks made in Hansard by the noble and
1488
learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of St Marylebone, in the 1974 debate when he brought forward the original legislation. At that time, if we take simply the condition of Jewish people, the matter was not a problem. But, perhaps I may refer to the remarks that the noble and learned Lord made. He is the editor of Halsbury's Laws of England. I am referring to the 1996 edition of that work, which is a very up-to-date volume. The noble and learned Lord makes clear in that volume that subsequent to 1974—indeed, in the Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1989—the changes made in the Religious Disabilities Act 1846, by which Her Majesty's subjects professing the Jewish religion were subject to the same laws as Protestant subjects, were removed. The provision may have been removed inadvertently; I am sure that it was not removed on purpose in order to create a problem. But what does the noble and learned Lord Lord Hailsham say about it and about some other repeals which have taken place in previous years? He says:
"In the light of these repeals, particularly the repeal of the Religious Disabilities Act 1846, it is unclear whether a person professing the Jewish religion would be appointed Lord Chancellor without clarifying legislation".
If the noble and learned Lord who brought legislation to this Chamber in 1974 to clarify the matter—a matter which was subsequently effected 15 years later by the Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1989—now says very clearly in Halsbury's Laws of England 1996 that there is a problem, surely it is clear that this piece of legislation is appropriate, is necessary, is permissive and, I submit, ought to be passed by this Chamber. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: Perhaps I should be ashamed to say that I am not very knowledgeable about ecclesiastical law, but it is not one of my enthusiasms. However, I recognise its importance in the maintenance of good order in the Church. For that reason, I value very highly the expert advice of ecclesiastical lawyers; indeed, I depend upon it. One of the Church's senior lawyers, Miss Ingrid Slaughter, sent me a detailed briefing on the Bill explaining the issues, which are more complex than I realised. She did so in language that even the Bishop of Norwich can understand. She has helped me in the past and, knowing my frailties, stressed in her briefing that she thought there was no need for me to speak. She did not add, because she is gracious, that she feared that, if I did so, I might make a hash of it. Nevertheless, I want to make a few brief and non-technical remarks.
The Church of England sympathises—indeed, strongly supports—the motives which have led the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, to introduce his amendment. I hardly need labour the point that we share wholeheartedly with him a commitment to the unity of all the Churches, and an abhorrence both of a sectarian spirit and discrimination on grounds of religion or lack of it. However, I have to communicate the fact that the Church's lawyers, whom I know to he personally in complete sympathy with the noble Lord's motives, believe that there are technical flaws which would make for complications in the operation of parts of the Bill.

1489
If it was thought right ultimately to redraft the Bill, I believe that the advice of the Church of England's legal experts would be invaluable, as well as that of the Church's main committee, through which the main Christian denominations work together on matters touching relations between Church and state. So it is with regret and great reluctance that I have to say that I am unable to support the noble Lord's amendment. I say, "regret", because I strongly support everything that he is trying to do.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, for putting down an amendment, which I acknowledge is plainly intended to deal with a point that I made on Second Reading two weeks ago. What I believe the noble Lord has explained in substance to the Committee is the fact that the amendment is designed to ensure that a Lord Chancellor who is willing to exercise ecclesiastical functions, and who is not prevented by any legal bar from doing so, should be entitled to do so. As I understand the noble Lord, he has explained to Members of the Committee that the specific reference to adherents of the Roman Catholic faith is there in recognition of the fact that the situation would be different, in any event, if the office were held by a Roman Catholic, because there would be a pre-existing legal bar. I observe that the noble Lord is nodding his head in agreement. Therefore, I believe that I have accurately summarised his intention.
As I have something of a more encouraging nature to say at the end of my few remarks, I hope that the noble Lord will not be overly disappointed to hear that, while I fully appreciate that the amendment is well meaning, in my judgment the new words would not achieve what he intends. However, they demonstrate how difficult it can be to make apparently minor modifications to an area of law as complex as this one, without creating new anomalies and uncertainties. I was heartened to hear the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich say that he regarded ecclesiastical law as a rather complex sea that he would not desire for himself to navigate. There is art enormous risk that, in tying up one loose end, other threads will be broken. That is why even a modest change demands great caution and careful examination of all the other inter-reacting legislation.
Perhaps I may expand on that. I believe that the effect of the amendment now proposed to Section 2 of the Lord Chancellor (Tenure of Office and Discharge of Ecclesiastical Functions) Act 1974 would lead to four possible situations. First, if the Lord Chancellor were a Roman Catholic, there would be no change to the present law. He would still be barred by law from exercising the patronage functions. Accordingly, if nothing were done, those functions would devolve on the Archbishop of Canterbury, but they could be transferred to another Minister without the Lord Chancellor being involved. Secondly, if the Lord Chancellor were Jewish, he, too, would continue to be barred by law from exercising the functions himself. They might be transferred to another Minister, but only if the Lord Chancellor agreed. Otherwise
1490
they would devolve on the Archbishop. Thirdly, if the Lord Chancellor was a member of the Church of England, only he could exercise the functions. There would be no machinery to enable any other person to do so. I should pause here to endorse the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, at Second Reading about the uncertainty of what may be meant by being a member of that Church.
Finally, if the Lord Chancellor did not fall into any of those three special categories, the functions could be exercised by him, or, with his agreement, an Order in Council transferring them to another Minister could be made. Thus, for example, an atheist need not be deterred from accepting the office because his conscience made him reluctant to exercise an ecclesiastical function. On the other hand, as the initiative would not be with him, the offer might, in theory, have been made conditional on his agreeing that those functions should be carried out by someone else.
If I am right in my interpretation of what would be the effect of this amendment, the result would be far from simple and not satisfactory. Instead of there being fewer or no religious distinctions, there would be more. At the time when each appointment to the office was made, and perhaps before and at various stages afterwards, it would be necessary to investigate which of the four categories applied to the Lord Chancellor of the day, or prospective Lord Chancellor, in order to see whether the power could be exercised—let alone whether it should be exercised.
If the Lord Chancellor was a Christian, there could be uncertainty as to which of the categories applied to him. Membership or non membership of the Church of England is not statutorily defined, and in any event I understand that the Church takes the view that membership does not preclude the individual from being a member of some other religious group at the same time.
As I have explained to the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, in correspondence—I have sent him a letter dated 26th March, which I hope he has received and considered—I have made it plain that I have considerable sympathy, as indeed has the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich, with what he is trying to achieve. Perhaps I should say that I have even more sympathy with him in the difficulty and intricacy of the task that he has courageously undertaken, in the attempt to weave a practical and simple solution into an exceptionally complex body of law with many and various sources.
I recognise that this amendment is well intentioned but for the reasons I have given I cannot commend it to the Committee. I am sure the noble Lord will permit me to say in the Chamber that I have expressed my personal sympathy for any Bill which relieved those who might be offered appointment to the office of Lord Chancellor from having to consider declining on religious grounds because of the ecclesiastical functions of that office. That is perhaps the other side of the coin from the motivation behind the 1974 Act. While it was clearly unsatisfactory that a Prime Minister should have been deterred from recommending the appointment of a

1491
Lord Chancellor of his choice because of concern that the appointment might prove to have been invalid on religious grounds, it would be equally unsatisfactory if the person chosen were deterred from accepting because he would be reluctant to exercise an ecclesiastical function which would be part of his role if he accepted.
I believe, however, that this problem could be more effectively met by a Bill confined to that particular purpose. I should make it clear that I am not saying that the Government would support such a Bill because traditionally these are matters for a free vote. However, I respectfully suggest to the noble Lord that, rather than seeking, as it were, to go it alone in truly deep and muddy legal waters, it would be better if he entered into discussions with my officials who have a deal of expertise in this recondite area. Lawyers of the Church of England to whom the right reverend Prelate referred could also join in the discussions. In the light of those discussions the noble Lord might be in a better position to consider how to proceed.
1.15 p.m.
Lord Alderdice: I am deeply grateful to the right reverend Prelate and to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for their remarks and for their encouragement in principle for the small efforts upon which I have embarked. I am also grateful for their words of advice so graciously tendered. Unfortunately due to the vagaries of the postal system I am not yet in possession of the letter that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has sent to me. I look forward to having an opportunity to study it and the comments that have been made in this debate.
As I said earlier, my purpose is to try to remove these anomalies, not merely for the benefit of those who might find themselves in this position but to signify how our community has developed at the highest levels in a constructive, positive and non-discriminatory fashion. Given the opportunities that have been proffered by the right reverend Prelate and particularly by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to discuss these matters with those who have vastly greater technical expertise than I have, but who have the same commitment to achieving what is right and good, I shall withdraw the amendment as I wish to do useful business with the expert advisers. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

Consumer Credit (Increase of Monetary Limits) (Amendment) Order 1998
1.17 p.m.
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 13th January be approved [19th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this order is to increase the monetary limits that determine which consumer credit and consumer hire agreements are regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974, as well as the limit at which certain credit advertisements are exempt from the provisions of the Act. These limits are currently £15,000. From 1st May 1998 the limits will be £25,000 and so will bring more loans within the scope of the Act. As a result more consumers should benefit from the advantages of the Act. This is because most consumers who take out unsecured consumer loans will have the protections the Act gives to regulated agreements such as cancellation rights and cooling-off periods.
Many consumers who take out loans for house purchase and other loans secured on property from lenders other than banks and building societies will also gain protection. Your Lordships will note that the limits covered by the order are some of the most important monetary limits in the Act. But the Act also contains various other monetary limits and amounts which the Government propose to increase by separate legislation which is not subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 13th January be approved [19th Report from the Joint Committee]—(Lord Haskel.)
Lord Borrie: My Lords, I welcome the order. It restores to individuals the benefits of the protection of the Consumer Credit Act which has been eroded by inflation over the past 15 years. As the Minister indicated, a regulated consumer credit agreement provides a considerable amount of protection to the individual. I refer not just to the cooling-off rights but other rights concerning requirements for the agreement and pre-agreement material including an indication of the rate of interest so that it can be compared in a fair way with other rates of interest. As regards repossession of goods, I refer to the right of a firm stake, as it is sometimes called, in the goods obtained on hire purchase by having paid one third of the total due. It is undoubtedly beneficial to the individual to have the limit raised from £15,000 to £25,000.
However, the draft order raises certain questions in my mind. Why wait 15 years? One may not want such orders coming before the House every time inflation is 3 per cent. or 4 per cent. One does not want such an order coming before the House every year. However, bearing in mind that inflation has eroded protection gradually over a long period, instead of fixing the limits for 12 or 15 years ahead, perhaps by order the limits could be adjusted by the RPI. Alternatively, the Government could come forward with a draft order with a higher limit which one might reach as inflation of 2 per cent., 3 per cent., or 4 per cent. per annum was envisaged, no government apparently envisaging nil inflation. So why not a limit of £35.000 instead of £25,000?

1493
The final point on which I should be grateful for the Minister's comments is this. Why have a limit? The regulation applies only to individuals. I realise that it includes not only the private consumer but those in partnerships. But it excludes those in corporate businesses. It might be said that they do not need this protection; they can look after themselves. I am not sure why any individual should not enjoy the protection of the Consumer Credit Act which exists for regulated agreements. One might argue that the more money at stake—let us say, on a Jaguar or a Mercedes instead of a more modest saloon car—the more one needs the protection that the Consumer Credit Act provides for regulated agreements.
I welcome the increase in the limit that the draft order provides. However, I doubt whether it is satisfactory to deal with the problem once every decade or so.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Minister will be relieved that I rise not to oppose the order but to support it, and to make a different point about the prolonged period over which there has been no increase. I put that down to a sustained period of low inflation, which has been welcome, and I hope the prospects of that continuing are good.
The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, raises some interesting points about whether there is to be a commitment to an annual review, or a target to be reached over time. It is important that at some time the Government set out their views. In the meantime I support the order.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for their comments, and for their support. My noble friend asks: why wait 15 years? The matter is reviewed as and when consultations lead one to think it necessary. There may be a good reason for having a regular review. I am sure that the Government will look into the matter.
As regards the limits being adjusted by the RPI, there are other matters so adjusted. I am sure that it is a matter the Government will consider. I thank my noble friend for that suggestion.
My noble friend suggests moving towards a limit which envisages what inflation will be. I am not sure that my right honourable friend the Chancellor would wish us to take a view as to what inflation will be and to move towards that total. I do not know how far that proposal will get.
My noble friend referred to the business aspect. That is a separate issue and not related to the order. However, since my noble friend raised the point, let me say that the Government agree with the judgment of the Commons committee which, before the election, examined the previous government's proposals to deregulate business lending. The committee rejected that on the ground that the Consumer Credit Act provides valuable protection to sole traders and unincorporated businesses. The Government have no plans to remove business lending from its scope. I thank noble Lords for their proposals. I commend the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Employment Rights (Increase of Limits) Order 1998
1.26 p.m.
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 18th February be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the order is to increase the maximum amount of most of the awards that industrial tribunals can make to individuals whose statutory employment rights have been infringed. It also affects the amount of redundancy payments payable to employees.
As your Lordships know, the employment rights legislation requires the Secretary of State to review certain limits annually. Those are the limit on the amount and duration of guaranteed payments; the limit on the weekly amounts payable from the National Insurance Fund to employees of an employer who has become insolvent; and the limit on a week's pay used in calculating statutory redundancy payments, the basic award of compensation for unfair dismissal, and the additional award for an employer's failure to comply with an order for reinstatement or re-engagement.
After taking into account the factors that we must consider—the general level of earnings; the national economic situation as a whole, and other relevant matters—we propose that the limit on the daily amount of guarantee pay should increase roughly by the rate of inflation, as measured by the retail price index. Since the last increase in September 1995, that is, from £14.50 to £15.35 per day, and that the limits on a week's pay should increase from £210 to £220.
The Secretary of State laid a report on 18th February in which she explained why the periods in respect of which guarantee payments can be made would not be increased. The legislation also enables the Secretary of State to review other limits on payments at her discretion. Those are the awards for compensation for unfair dismissal and the special awards which may be made in cases where the dismissal is related to an employee's activities as a trade union or a health and safety representative, as an employee pension scheme trustee, or as a representative for consultation about redundancy or business transfer.
We propose that the limits on these awards should also rise with inflation. We propose that the limit on the maximum award for compensation for unfair dismissal should increase from £11,300 to £12,000. These increases will ensure that the real value of the limit on payments and industrial tribunal awards will not be eroded.
The proposed new limits will be set out in the order. In commending the increases to the House, I wish to say that in reviewing the awards, as well as taking into account the factors I mentioned earlier, we have also had regard to employers' costs and the cost to public expenditure.
In the longer term the Government wish to consider whether the limits, and the arrangements for reviewing them, work in the best way to meet our aims. Although we are not in a position to say yet what the options might be, we should be interested to hear and would welcome representations from your Lordships and from interested parties elsewhere. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 18th February be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Haskel.)
1.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the order that the noble Lord has set out refers to 12 areas where the increases are to take effect. I wish to repeat the point made by my honourable friend in another place, Mr. Tim Boswell, when he referred to an increase of 4 per cent. for redundancy pay, and an increase in compensation by a tribunal of 6 per cent.
I have read the reply by the Minister in another place. Although the Minister uses the argument of rounding up and rounding down for this range of increases, and indeed the Minister referred today to "roughly by the rate of inflation", I remain of the view that a 2 per cent. differential, when uplifting costs in line with inflation, should not become common practice.
It is important to record, and always to keep at the forefront of one's mind, that any increase must be met by someone. In this case, the burdens fall on business. I believe that the estimated cost to business is between £8 million and £111/2 million. Those costs, taken together with many of the other financial burdens being laid on business, certainly as a result of two Budgets from the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, are causing considerable anxiety.
It may come as a relief to the Minister that I shall not oppose the order. However, I ask that extreme sensitivity to the business sector—which will fall subject to these costs—should be shown in future.
It is not simply a question of employers being responsible, and therefore avoiding the need for such measures. That is an argument that I take as read. Legislation is constantly being passed, some during this Session and some to come, which derives from obligations that will result from signing the social chapter. If the country is to flourish, a prerequisite for jobs and prosperity is that business should also flourish.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for those comments. My answer is the same as that given in the Commons; namely, that it is a matter of rounding. However, we will take note of the noble Baroness's remarks. It will not become common practice. I imagine that, as these matters are rounded each year, so they will even out.
I also note very carefully the noble Baroness's remarks about the burdens on business. It is a matter that the Government, too, take very seriously.
1496
The Government have taken into account the views of business through a consultation exercise, which was carried out in respect of the previous increase, and also very recently, between November 1996 and January 1997. It was regarded as suitable for the 1997 review. These increases are being kept in line with inflation. We do try to keep the burden on business down. Nevertheless, we take very careful note of what the noble Baroness has said. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Railways (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1998
1.34 p.m.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 27th February be approved [25th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The draft order before the House today is a straightforward provision which prescribes rateable values for the year 1997–98 for the operational lands and heritages occupied by ScotRail, and other franchise operators who are now in rateable occupation of property acquired from the British Railways Board.
The prescribed rateable value figure taken from the British Railways Board (Rateable Values)(Scotland) Order 1995 has been adjusted to take account of the disposal of a number of properties, and to arrive at a new prescribed total of £602,600 for 1997–98. That figure has been apportioned among the franchise operators on the basis of rental evidence from the current regulatory and charging regime and between local authorities on the basis of the locations of the properties concerned.
When the ScotRail passenger rail franchise was acquired by the National Express Group on 1st April 1997, the British Railways Board (Rateable Values)(Scotland) Order 1995, which had prescribed the rateable value of property occupied by British Rail, ceased to have any effect. This draft order prescribes the rateable value for the new occupiers and merely continues the previous rating arrangements.
The draft order has been subject to consultation, with local authorities and the franchise operators concerned. All are in agreement with the proposal. Further orders will be required for 1998–99 and 1999–2000 in due course. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 27th February be approved [25th Report from the Joint Committe.]—(Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale.)
Lord Luke: My Lords, we on these Benches support the approval of this order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security (Minimum Contributions to Appropriate Personal Pension Schemes) Order 1998
1.36 p.m.
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 4th March be approved [26th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. At the same time, I wish to speak to the draft Social Security (Reduced Rates of Class 1 Contributions, and Rebates) (Money Purchase Contracted-out Schemes) Order 1998.
I am grateful for this opportunity to put forward the Government's position on pensions, on contracting-out and, more generally, on rebates from the National Insurance Fund.
We believe that the two Budgets announced by the Government are good for the economy and will be good for pensions schemes in the long term. However, there was a need to ensure that personal pension holders did not lose out in the short term. We do not believe that there is the same short term problem for contracted-out money purchase schemes (COMPS). The rebates are reviewed every five years, and the next quinquennial review is due in three years. We believe there is no early action necessary in relation to this issue. That also applies to contracted-out salary related schemes (COSRS).
However, there is a short-term risk to individuals who have to decide whether they will be better off remaining in a personal pension scheme or contracting back into SERPS.
We do not believe that there is a problem for occupational pension schemes. Like the Government, they can take a longer view. A significant number of schemes are more than adequately funded, with some employers on contribution holidays and others paying contributions at a reduced rate. Because of the particular profile of some schemes, many do not have to rely on the contingency margin in the contracted-out salary related scheme rebate. These factors cover any short-term problems which may arise.
The current COMPS rebate reflects the fact that most COMPS were insured and had a small number of members. That was certainly the position in 1996, when the rebates were last set. Consequently, the rebate contains an expense allowance which recognises the higher administrative costs associated with running a small insured COMP.
However, since 1996 a number of changes have taken place which have altered the nature and composition of COMP schemes. We know that a number of schemes which were previously contracted out on a salary-related basis have switched to contracting-out on a money-purchase basis. Some of them have switched purely to take advantage of the higher rebates available to these schemes without any change in the benefits that they provide. Others have switched for business reasons not connected to the rebate. That is why from April
1498
1999 the expense allowances within the rebate will be replaced by that currently contained within the COSR rebate.
I do not believe that money purchase provision is about to become extinct. I do accept that contracted-out money-purchase arrangements have been on the decline for some while, but this is a trend that was established well before we took office. We have to accept that some pension providers will be quick to capitalise on any new arrangements, particularly if there is money to be made. But the rebates are to be reviewed at the latest in three years' time. This will be a full review, when we can give proper consideration to all aspects, including how they will fit with stakeholder pensions schemes. We shall also be looking then to ensure that there are no unwanted distortions in the system which are responsible for driving behaviour in a way which does not fit with the aims and objectives of contracting-out.
I fully recognise that this is a difficult and complex area. It is also clear that the rebate structure that we have inherited has over the past 20 years created inequalities. It is one which does not always match the needs of the different types of contracted-out pension provision now available. It is of fundamental importance that the aims and objectives of contracting out support the overall pensions framework. We fully intend to examine these difficulties within the context of the pensions review, but in the short term these orders do what is needed and I commend them to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 4th March be approved [26th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Haskel.)
Earl Howe: My Lords, the Minister's introduction of these orders, for which the House will be grateful, gives the impression of a routine and uncontentious pair of measures. The fact that we are debating them on a Friday afternoon perhaps accentuates that impression. If only it were thus. The reality is, unfortunately, very different.
I do not relish using strong terminology in your Lordships' House, but the second of these orders represents, in my view, a most serious betrayal of substantial groups of pensioners who, before the Government were elected to office, had reason to expect much better things.
I hope the House will forgive me if I briefly set out the background. There are three types of pensions which one can have when working: an occupational contracted-out money-purchase scheme (COMP): an occupational contracted-out salary-related scheme (COSR); and a personal pension. A member of one these schemes receives a rebate from national insurance contributions to pay into the pension fund. The amount of that rebate is determined by the Government.
Last July the Chancellor abolished ACT dividend tax credits for pension funds. The Opposition, both here and in another place, and many people in the pensions industry said that this would have a very damaging effect on pension funds. The National Association of Pension Funds strongly criticised the Chancellor's proposed changes to ACT. As a result, nearly five

1499
months after the Budget, the Government sought advice from the Government Actuary, who did some calculations and put forward recommendations to alter each of the three rates of national insurance rebate to counteract the reduction in income which pension funds would suffer as a result of the Budget proposals.
The key assumption underlying those recommendations was that the return on investment for pension funds would be down by ¼ per cent. per annum. What did the Government do? They proceeded to accept the rebate figures based on that assumption for salary-related schemes and personal pensions but for money-purchase schemes they chose to ignore the assumption altogether and instead to opt for a rebate figure which, not to put too fine a point on it, would save the Treasury the maximum possible amount of money.
The result is that a larger rebate will be received on personal pensions, albeit not for nearly two years after the July Budget, but occupational pensions, and especially money-purchase schemes, have been hit. The COSR rebate has been frozen and the COMP rebate has been reduced way below the Government Actuary's recommendation. This creates a completely inconsistent regime for the three types of pension, each of which has suffered equally as a result of the ACT changes. There is no logic to that and, more important perhaps, there is no justice, either.
In their manifesto, the Labour Party promised to,
"support and strengthen the framework for occupational pensions".
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, when Shadow Chancellor, said during the election campaign said that all Labour's proposals would protect and improve the quality of life of pensioners. Yet within weeks of being elected to office the new Government gave us a Budget which directly penalised pension funds, a fact which they initially chose not to acknowledge, and subsequent to that, despite unequivocal advice from the Government Actuary, they have now taken measures which target occupational pensions, and specifically the contingency margins within them, as a source of free revenue for the Exchequer. The public as a whole are not aware of this. That ignorance is not surprising because the changes are hidden in technical and abstruse corners of statutory instruments and regulations which slip through Parliament largely unreported.
The questions for the Government are fundamental. The effect of the Government's failure to increase the COSR rebate is that the cost of contracting out will be higher than the cost of providing a benefit equivalent to SERPS. Do the Government accept that this will mean that many employers and scheme members will now pay more for contracted-out benefits than they would have paid if the employment had been contracted in? Do they also agree that the Budget change will leave many more COSR schemes reliant on their contingency margins than was the case before?
Turning to COMPS, do the Government agree that the effect of their decision will be to discourage such schemes and encourage employers to switch from COMPS to group personal pension schemes? Small employers, in particular, are apparently being told that
1500
if they move to a group personal pension scheme, or indeed back to SERPS, they will save money. Is that what the Government really want?
The effect of the second measure under discussion is quite simply to penalise money-purchase scheme members and small employers by reducing their rebate in order to finance the increase to the personal pension rebate which is needed to avoid many millions of personal pension holders returning to SERPS.
Despite their commitment to open government, the Government have not been open in explaining the effects of this measure on members of occupational schemes. That is to be deplored. There was no consultation on the Government Actuary's draft report, even though such consultation is routine in these circumstances. The Government have said one thing and done the opposite, hoping that no one will notice. I wonder whether the net result of all this will be to save money at the end of the day once people discover how the figures stack up.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the noble Earl asked a number of questions and I shall try to deal with them one by one. He referred to the Government Actuary and the consultation that took place with him. First, I can make clear that the Government Actuary did not make any recommendations. There had been a number of changes which had the potential to impact on the national insurance rebates. We asked the Government Actuary for his advice in relation to those changes. He gave us his advice and we took note. But we also had other issues to consider. We had to look at trends in pensions and to decide whether public money was being properly spent.
The noble Earl suggested that those changes were being driven by cost with no consideration for the long-term position of pensions It is not cost-driven. There is no question that the COMP rebate was reduced to offset the cost of increasing the APP rebates. The money purchase rebate no longer reflects the nature and composition of contracted-out money purchase provision. It is largely immaterial why schemes are changing; the fact remains that many schemes are attracting an inappropriate level of rebate. Allowing that to continue is not prudent management of the National Insurance Fund and we are responsible for the prudent management of that fund.
The noble Earl spoke about the effect of the Budget on reducing the value of pensions and rebates. We have to look at the Budget as a whole and the Budget as a whole was good for the economy and will be good for pension schemes in the long term. As I explained, there was a need to ensure that people with personal pensions did not lose out in the short term. We do not believe that there is the same short-term issue for occupational schemes. The rebates are reviewed every five years and the next quinquennial review will be due in three years' time.
The Government Actuary was asked to examine trends in personal pension provision and issues arising from the Budget. The Budget was for the long term and pensions are a long-term business.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, no doubt the noble Lord will remember J. M. Keynes' remark that in the long term we are all dead!
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I am sure that we will take careful note of that remark. However, I was talking about the long term in terms of pensions and that is a measurable long term.
The noble Earl implied that the measures would push people back into SERPS. We are increasing the rebates on personal pensions because of the short-term risk that some people with personal pensions may have been advised to rejoin SERPS. Increasing the rebate ensures that contracting-out remains attractive and promotes funded pension provision. There is not a long-term problem for those occupational schemes, as I said. Our policies are designed to create an environment in which pensions will flourish. For the overwhelming majority of individuals in occupational schemes, there is no question but that they are better off out of SERPS.
I believe I have answered all the points raised by the noble Earl. If there are others, I shall certainly write to him. It is clear from this afternoon's debate that getting the relationship right between different methods of contracting-out is important and the interest generated by the noble Earl is testament to that. I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to the questions raised and I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security (Reduced Rates of Class 1 Contributions, and Rebates) (Money Purchase Contracted-out Schemes) Order 1998
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 4th March be approved [26th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this order. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 4th March be approved [26th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Haskel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Sexual Diseases in the Former Soviet Union
1.54 p.m.
Lord Rea Lord Rea rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking bilaterally, or multilaterally through the European Union or the World Health Organisation, to help curb the rapidly escalating epidemic of syphilis and other sexually transmitted diseases including HIV/AIDS in the countries of the former Soviet Union.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, first, I thank all those noble Lords who have stayed this afternoon to discuss a problem which at first glance may seem a little remote
1502
from our concerns at home. But, as all noble Lords are aware, nowhere in the world today can be regarded, as Neville Chamberlain described Czechoslovakia in 1938. as, "a faraway country of which we know little".
Your Lordships' House has a tradition of compassion as well as a pool of expertise which covers most countries. However, I hope to show that there is more than a little self-interest for Britain involved in this Unstarred Question. More than ever infectious diseases respect no frontiers. Many travellers and business people cross into Russia and further, into central Asia, and from those countries "go west"—if they can scrape the money together—in search of fortune and a better life. Some of those sell sexual favours and bring with them diseases which to us may be "yesterday's men of death", particularly syphilis which is still easily curable with penicillin in its early stages but which, in the presence of the HIV/AIDS virus, poses new and serious problems.
To show how relevant the Question is to those of us who live in the European Union, I should like to read from a letter published in the Lancet on 21st February this year by a group of doctors working in Verona, Italy, who surveyed 110 foreign-born prostitutes who attended their clinic. The letter states:
"Immigrants from the former Soviet Union had the highest rate of active syphilis (27.8%). Compared with the rest of the group, these women had the least past experience in prostitution [were the youngest] and the highest incidence of pregnancy".
In other words, they did not understand the importance and had no education in the practice of safe sex.
My attention was brought to this growing problem by a seminar organised by the Social Market Foundation last month at which experts with knowledge of the sexually transmitted diseases (STD) situation in the former Soviet Union (FSU) discussed some very disturbing findings in a series of papers. Prominent among them were Dr. Alex Gromyko, adviser on STD and AIDS at the European Regional office of the World Health Organisation, and Dr. Adrian Renton, who is Reader in Public Health Medicine at Imperial College. He has made a special study of the problem following a fact-finding mission to Russia in December 1995.
They told us, for example, that the incidence of newly identified cases of syphilis in most of the countries of the FSU has risen dramatically in the past eight or nine years. In Russia, for instance, the total number of notified cases rose from just over 6,000 in 1988 to nearly 390,000 in 1996—a 62-fold increase. The notification rates per 100,000 of the population rose even more steeply in young people, especially 18–19 year-olds, with young women having twice the rate of young men.
Between 1990 and 1996 rates rose by multiples of 12.5 to 82 times in countries ranging from Moldova to Ukraine, Belarus, the Baltic States, through to Kazakhstan and Kirgizia. That is in contrast to the period before perestroika in which the high rates in the 1920s were brought down some 200-fold due to a vigorous public health control system and the use of penicillin. Other STDs, particularly gonorrhoea and chlamydia have probably had similar increases to syphilis, but because they are not so well notified the

1503
figures are less reliable. The law is enforced strictly on the notification of syphilis. The experts at the seminar were satisfied that the data that I summarised were based on sound laboratory methods.
It is worth mentioning that the rates of syphilis in most countries in northern and western Europe have been very low for some years—fewer than five per 100,000.
The reason that there is urgency in tackling this epidemic of "old fashioned" STDs, such as syphilis, is the now established knowledge that the spread of HIV/AIDS through sexual contact is much more rapid if the partner without HIV infection is suffering from one of the STDs that I described, particularly syphilis. That is because the protective epithelium (skin or mucous membrane) of the genital area is inflamed or ulcerated, thus offering a portal of entry for the HIV virus via inflammatory cells of the immune system where the virus flourishes.
I quote from the task force report of the WHO:
"In the presence of genital ulcers, the probability of HIV transmission per sexual act is increased 50–300 fold. Non-ulcerative STDs increase the risk of HIV infection less strongly, hut the population attributable effect may he even larger in areas where these STDs are highly prevalent".
A famous study in Africa showed that one could practically halve the transmission of HIV if treatment was offered for the common STDs that were prevalent there.
There was a comparatively low incidence of HIV infection in the populations of the former Soviet Union countries until well after perestroika, largely because of their previous relative isolation. Overall, even now, the cumulative number of cases has not reached the level even of western Europe. But while the incidence of new cases here has reached a plateau, and is now beginning to fall, the number of new cases in the FSU has shot up in the past three years; in Belarus, from eight to 1,021 between 1995–96; in the Ukraine, from 44 to more than 12,000 between 1994 and 1996; and in Russia there are similar increases. Initially, infection was largely confined to intravenous drug users who shared needles and syringes, a serious and increasing problem in the FSU, but in the past two or three years, as the epidemic has grown, an increasing proportion of infection is sexually transmitted.
The danger of HIV spread in a population with a high level of these bacterial STDs was brought home to the seminar by Dr. Renton in a calculation which showed that in a population with a 4 per cent. prevalence of syphilis, which is the case among 18 to 19 year-olds in one city in the Urals, the rate of transmission of HIV would increase by 20-fold above that in a population without STDs, leading to a major epidemic, possibly on a African scale, with a million or more deaths.
So an obvious question is: how did all this come about when STDs were previously under control? Of course, a complete answer would take several hours to relate, but the underlying cause is the enormous social and economic upheaval that has occurred in Russia and its neighbours during the past decade. The removal of an authoritarian, top-down bureaucracy and the
1504
encouragement of individual initiative has led many Russians to reject the punitive basis on which the sexually transmitted disease clinics of the USSR were run. Anonymity was not observed; indeed, workplaces were notified of cases among their staff: contacts were sought with the help of the militia; and treatment was compulsory. Syphilis was treated in a somewhat punitive manner by multiple injections of penicillin as an in-patient in hospital instead of out-patient treatment with one or two injections of long-acting penicillin, which is perfectly effective. At the same time the rigid (but hypocritical) moral code of the former regime has given way to a more relaxed attitude to sexual relationships, but without—this is very important—the sex education which should accompany it.
There has also been much more population movement. Economics, of course, have played a major role; many STD clinics do not get regular drug supplies, their staff are underpaid, and when the money does come it is often months late, leading to a very low state of morale and the seeking of work in other occupations to boost their inadequate income. Although some 10 per cent. of Russians have grown very rich since the end of the USSR, the majority are much worse off than they were, and there is a very high rate of unemployment, particularly among the young. In effect we are seeing the effects of a raw, unadulterated capitalism of Dickensian proportions on the health and behaviour of the population. Even going to a free STD clinic requires travel and there is usually a charge for drugs, if any are available. If people have little or no money, they cannot afford to attend.
In this economic climate, sex is treated increasingly as a saleable commodity, as a means of livelihood, especially, but not only, by women, some of whom may hope to gain advantages by granting favours to successful men. I could say that this behaviour is not unknown nearer home, even in the Palace of Westminster, but perhaps not so blatantly or to such a wide extent.
In Russia those with money can now attend private sector clinics or private doctors (some unqualified) who do guarantee anonymity. But the treatment and investigations are often over-elaborate so that higher fees can be charged.
Finally, there comes the question of how the UK can best help the situation. Of course, it is the governments and the people of the former Soviet Union countries themselves who will have to implement the package of measures that are necessary to cut short the current epidemic (and, I should add, also deal with their intravenous drugs problem, initially by the provision of clean syringes and needles) and thus, it is to be hoped, abort the much more serious danger of an explosion of HIV/AIDS. But it is important to act quickly. The rise is potentially exponential rather than additive and could lead to the deaths of millions of people. If nothing is done, there will be spill-over effects into the rest of Europe, and even to Britain.
The World Health Organisation is fully aware of the situation as is the consortium known as UNAIDS, which includes the World Bank. Several international meetings centring on the problem have been held and a task force on the problem has been set up. Reports from these recognise that health ministries alone in the countries concerned cannot cope with the problem. Many other departments of government need to be involved at central and local level. However, at a basic level sufficient trained personnel is available, but they need to learn new methods and new attitudes to regain the confidence of young people and how to co-operate with other agencies. Even the STD and HIV programmes are run separately. And confidential treatment must be made available at low cost or free with adequate supplies of condoms. Over and above this, a major public education exercise is needed, as was mounted here in the 1980s in response to the emerging HIV epidemic then.
Britain is running a small bilateral programme to assist. The Know-how Fund is backing a good demonstration programme in Samara in which family planning services, another area in great need of change in the former Soviet Union, are linked to STD services, and education departments are also being involved. I am aware of good work being done in the Ukraine by a project run by London Lighthouse and supported through the Millennium Fund, to which Healthlink, formerly AHRTAG, an NGO which I chaired for five years, has been acting as a consultant.
According to one of the Healthlink consultants who was in Kiev recently, the situation there is "dire". I shall be grateful if my noble friend can fill in more detail of the bilateral help that the UK is backing. In fact, the United Kingdom has built up an almost unique body of experience and expertise in the field of HIV/AIDS over the past decade and a half. We have a lot to teach.
This is far too big and urgent a problem, though, to be left to small, bilaterally-funded demonstration projects, even though they are a vital part of the assistance that we can give. Holding the EU presidency this year gives us an ideal position from which to convince other EU countries of the urgency of the situation and to realise that a window of opportunity now exists. The UK should recommend that strong support be given to the WHO Task Force for the Urgent Response to the Epidemics of STDs in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, which was set up at a meeting earlier this year in Copenhagen. I have no time to describe its recommendations in any detail, but it has produced an excellent document which I commend to my noble friend.
So far little European Union money has been spent on this emerging problem, which is on its very doorstep, while substantial EU development funds are going to Aids projects in Africa and south-east Asia. On 30th April there is a meeting of EU Health Ministers. I very much hope that my noble friend will be able to confirm that we will raise this very important issue that I have outlined at that meeting and will press for substantial backing for a multi-pronged assault on this developing tragedy in order to prevent it from becoming a disaster.
2.9 p.m.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rea, for introducing this timely and important subject, the spread of syphilis and HIV/AIDS and other contagious diseases in the former Soviet Union countries. If I have one quibble, it is a minor one. I hope that we shall try to get out of the habit of referring to the independent sovereign states of central and eastern Europe as former Soviet Union nations or countries. They were annexed to the Soviet Union in 1940 and subsequently in 1944, against their will.
I have to confess that I am woefully ignorant about medicine, hospitals and doctors. My knowledge is confined to what I learnt and picked up from regimental medical officers who served in my regiment; by an appendix operation; and, now, through visits to hospitals in the Baltic states. I needed to get a resident's permit. I went round a steeplechase of five hospitals having various medical checks in order to obtain it. I saw with fascination and horror how primitive the hospitals were.
I shall make two points. First, in 1945 the Allies reached Berlin. Sex from German women was available for cigarettes. The currency was a cigarette. After the Soviet forces withdrew the situation was not so bad. But sex is marketable for hard currency from the West, the Scandinavian countries or, indeed local currency.
I had the honour and privilege to lead a small team sent by the British Council to teach a United Nations peacekeeping battalion. I taught the English language for six months to 38 men between the ages of 18 and 32. To my knowledge four of them contracted syphilis during the course. Two of them were ill and their work fell off. I asked one of them why and he told me. I said, "You must tell your senior officer". He said. "I can't; I shall be thrown off the course".
Fortunately. I had met a leading psychiatrist in eastern Europe, Dr Anti Liiv, who is now a member of the Estonian Parliament. I met him at the British ambassador's table at lunch on 28th November 1994. I know the date because it is the day on which I became a Member of your Lordships' House. Dr. Anti Liiv told me this story. He was allowed to travel to the West during the Soviet occupation. He was allowed to do so because he did a great favour for the Russians. The Soviet Union had its great submarine base—the fourth largest in the world—at Paldiski on the peninsula about 15 miles from Tallinn. The Russians lost control, with alcoholism, contagious diseases, syphilis and the lot on the increase. They called in an Estonian to sort the place out.
Dr. Anti Liiv set up a clinic in Tallinn. He has informed me that syphilis, HIV and AIDS are on the increase. He says that he can provide medical support, but that it is limited and primitive. That is because the doctors need training. The Soviet Union, realising that it needed to keep control of its subject states, had to know every single detail of people's lives. So the people of eastern and central Europe were not encouraged or allowed to practise medicine. That is why the doctors need training.

1507
I am sure that we can assist, not only because of our generous nature, but also through various organisations such as the World Health Organisation and the European Union. However, time is pressing. Eastern Europe has outstanding universities. In Estonia, there is Tartu, founded in 1632. Theology, medicine, law and philosophy were its four core subjects, and have remained so. The Estonians, like, I am certain, the other 10 central and eastern European nations, look to us to assist. We have already done so to a considerable extent.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, mentioned London Lighthouse. I have received a copy of a letter stating that,
"the London Lighthouse is suffering terribly from a sudden decision by the Health Authorities across London to withdraw their funding from Lighthouse's key residential unit. At a stroke, this has cut the charity's income by one-third, and they are now contemplating closure of the unit".
I regard that as a disaster, knowing how much valuable work London Lighthouse has carried out in St. Petersburg, the Ukraine and elsewhere. I hope that the health authorities will be persuaded to reconsider their decision. I know that there is pressure on their resources, but I hope that London Lighthouse will be able to continue to function.
Secondly, although I have taught young people in Tallinn, I have also gone out into the rural areas. I said to the head English teacher in the Pölva Maakons, "I know how busy you are, but do you ever go to Tallinn?" She replied, "Yes, and my first port of call is the British Council. I pick up all of its pamphlets and take them back to my students. I teach lessons from them." She showed me what she regarded as the most important leaflet. It was an excellent brochure on contagious diseases, syphilis and HIV. The British Council is doing very good work in educating people in eastern and central Europe not only in the study of our language, hut also in health promotion and sex education.
Britain has provided magnificent support through our military training teams. I refer to NCOs from the Royal Marines of the calibre of Colour Sergeant Alan Sheperd who was decorated for his work by the president of Estonia. He includes in his courses advice to young NCOs and soldiers about personal hygiene. It is a small but significant process because those young men who are being trained by the British Royal Marines will rapidly grow into positions of considerable authority. Again, I use Estonia as an example because these are the facts of which I am aware, but I am certain that the same is true of other nations in central and eastern Europe. I pay tribute also to the work of the Chevening Trust in granting scholarships in every field, particularly medicine.
Our British embassies in central and eastern Europe are doing excellent work. I refer to our ambassador, Tim Craddock, and to his predecessor, Ambassador Charles de Chassiron, who, from their limited funds, gave donations and equipment to hospitals to Tallinn. That was widely appreciated. I hope that the Foreign Office will be able to continue support through the embassy funds.
1508
I do not pretend to know the answer to this problem. The five plus one nations who are rapidly transforming their economies and will shortly be allowed to start negotiations with the European Union are fully aware that unless they meet the social criteria they will not make as rapid progress as they should. Therefore, on those grounds, they could be denied full membership of the European Union. I believe that the British nation can, through its contacts with the United Nations, the World Health Organisation and its presidency of the European Union, play a considerable part in eradicating and, hopefully, eliminating this ghastly social evil that could affect us all.
2.21 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, we all owe a debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Rea, for drawing to our attention this important matter. He has already set out the facts very lucidly and I shall not repeat them. I merely reinforce them by invoking the observations of Dr.Karl Dehne, who represented UNAIDS, a United Nations consortium, at a seminar that I chaired in Amsterdam last year. It was he who first brought the whole of this field to my attention. At that seminar he said that, at a recent conference, Russia's Minister for Health had talked about 800,000 new HIV infections by the year 2000 in Russia alone. He said that in Russia there were about half a million intravenous drug users. He referred to the opening up of the gay scene and the increased contact between males from eastern and western Europe, as well as the increase in male sex workers travelling to western Europe.
He concluded his remarks at that meeting as follows:
"Eastwards from Central Europe there is no information, no access to counselling, STD services, condoms and so on. Some NGOs have started working with drug users in Eastern Europe but involvement is still very low. A major international initiative is now required, supported by adequate financial resources, to adapt the experience of Western Europe to the East and prevent this HIV and STD crisis from spilling over the borders of the East into the West".
I also draw upon an article by Dr. Adrian Renton, reader in social medicine at Imperial College. London, to whom the noble Lord, Lord Rea, has already referred, in the last issue of the EPPNA Review, which is the journal of the European Public Policy Network on HIV and AIDS. In that article he speaks of a 48-fold (4,800 per cent.) increase in syphilis notification in the Russian Federation between 1989 and 1996. That represents 263 per 100,000 of population. The rates for Belarus, Moldova and Khazakstan are not much lower, and the Ukraine scores a hefty 144 per 100,000.
These are the raw figures for syphilis but it is not the end of the story. Dr. Renton also stresses the linkage between STDs and HIV:
"There is good evidence that if one or both members of a sexual partnership has an STD, and one partner has HIV. then the probability of transmission of HIV during coitus may he several times increased. At the population level this enhancement of transmission is further amplified by the fact that both HIV and STDs

1509
tend to be concentrated within the same subgroups of the population. This combination of pockets of very high HIV prevalence among IVDUs"—
intravenous drug users—
"in major cities with high background levels of STD prevalence. … threatens to generate much larger epidemics of sexually transmitted HIV infection than have been seen in Western European countries".
Like the noble Lord, Lord Rea, I take the opportunity to pay tribute to Dr. Renton, who is the medical academic who has done most to bring this situation and this threat to the attention of the political world and who has produced much valuable information for more than one speaker in this debate.
Naturally one seeks an explanation of such an explosion. Dr. Renton, the noble Lord said, attributes it to the extremely rapid cultural changes brought about by market reforms, which have stimulated travel, internal migration, casualisation of sex, decline in the age of sex initiation, increase in prostitution, and penetration of sexually orientated products, images and advertising. This cultural revolution has been accompanied by the collapse of the traditional system of STD surveillance and control which pertained under the old regime. Central funds are no longer available to support this and decent clinics are only available to those who can pay. I have no doubt this is a true picture. However, market reforms will undoubtedly continue and so will the cultural revolution. Obviously, we do not want to support a return to the old draconian powers of compulsory hospitalisation and contact tracing. That is not an option. So the question is, what can be done in the present context?
But before attempting an answer I feel I should pose a prior question. Is any of this our business? In response to this, I would like to make it plain that I am not an unqualified supporter of all public health initiatives, especially those which seem to intrude unduly into people's lifestyles where no serious risk to others is concerned. However, infectious disease does seem to me a legitimate public health concern, and there are clearly no geographical boundaries where they are concerned. That is why we have international agencies such as WHO and UNAIDS to co-ordinate the response to transnational public health threats. But such agencies are only as effective as their constituent parts, which means the member states by which they are funded. There is precious little they can do other than exhort and cajole, unless the political authorities of their member states are prepared to finance and implement their recommendations. To that extent, I would argue that the epidemics which are the subject of this question are our business, as members of and subscribers to the international agencies concerned.
It is also our business in terms of self-interest. What is now a relatively benign HIV and AIDS situation in Northern Europe, owing to the successful strategies we have adopted, could seriously worsen if a large number of HIV cases develops, riding on the back of syphilis, across the broad swathe of countries to the east of the current European Union. Of course, the EU has no common border with the newly independent states of the former Soviet Union, but that is not much protection
1510
in a period of migration of labour and internationally organised prostitution, which know no boundaries. Fortress Europe might be able to keep some tariff barriers up but it can be no protection against disease.
There is also the important dimension of enlargement of the Community to which the noble Earl, Lord Carlisle, referred, which will bring in a number of states that do have common borders with the FSUI apologise to him for the use of that phrase, but it seems to have crept into usage—in some of which those epidemics are already showing signs of taking off, as he said.
It was therefore a matter of some surprise and concern that there was no representative from either the European Commission or the European Parliament at the founding meeting of the "task force for urgent response to epidemics of sexually transmitted disease in Eastern Europe and Central Asia", organised by WHO in Copenhagen on the 23rd/24th February past. The World Bank was there. UNAIDS and other UN agencies were there. The United States Agency for International Development was there. Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Germany were there. Our own Know-how Fund was there. Medécins sans Frontieres was there. But no one was there from the EU, on whose doorstep these events are happening. That does seem rather extraordinary, especially as the Commission acquired a new public health role under the Maastricht Treaty, to which I shall return shortly.
Leaving that on one side for the moment, what can we ourselves do? What can the UK do? I am pleased to say, as the Minister will know, that I had a very positive letter from his right honourable friend Clare Short. the Secretary of State for International Development, in support of a seminar I organised on this issue on 25th February. It was well attended by representatives of her department. In her letter, the Secretary of State wrote:
"I share your concern about the dramatic resurgence of syphilis and other sexually transmitted diseases in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union"—
I am afraid that the Secretary of State also uses that phrase—
"particularly when the link between untreated STDs and susceptibility to HIV infection is so devastatingly clear".
She continues with the welcome news that,
"DfID expects to do more in this area".
I have heard of the work by the Know-how Fund in certain Russian locations, which I applaud, but it would be interesting to hear from the Minister what form the crucial word "more" is going to take.
I have also had a letter from the public health Minister, Tessa Jowell, replying in encouraging terms to a letter of mine suggesting that this matter be placed on the agenda for discussion at the next Health Council on 30th April. She wrote to me stating:
"I share your concern … We will be holding a general discussion of the future priorities for the EU in the field of public health at the Health Council on 30th April, and I am sure that in that context the worrying rise in the incidence of STDs in Eastern Europe will be raised as an issue".

1511
She then refers to a conference which the UK presidency is sponsoring on 19th May in London and she mentions that the Government are considering the possibility of co-hosting with the European Commission a meeting on 28th May to which health ministry officials of applicant countries will be invited.
It is certainly welcome news, after their disappointing absence from the task force foundation meeting, that the Commission seems to be involved and if the Government have played a part in this they are to be congratulated.
I wish to ask the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, whether he can clarify the Government's intentions in the following respects. First, what further action will the Government take to stimulate action by the European Union? I understand that the Community is close to agreeing a decision which will establish a network for communicable disease surveillance. Can he say how that will operate and whether it will extend to associate and applicant states? If not, there will be little advance on the surveillance arrangements which already operate among the 15.
Secondly, will the Government participate actively in the work of the task force? If so, how do they think they can make the most impact? We have a wealth of experience in this country in the operation of genito-urinary clinics based on confidentiality and free access to treatment, which sounds exactly what is required in the former Soviet Union and other affected states. We are also good at outreach programmes through voluntary agencies working with people such as prostitutes and drug users who want to have nothing to do with the official system. These are extremely cost effective and they reach the parts other lagers do not reach. Is it within the remit on DfID to contribute to such voluntary bodies? In areas where we have undoubted experience and expertise, I would suggest that bilateral aid is probably the best route.
Thirdly, as the noble Lord, Lord Rea, mentioned, the health Minister has agreed that STDs in central and eastern Europe merit discussion at the next Health Council, hut the topic could easily be crowded out by other business. Will the Government undertake that it will be raised by the UK from the chair?
Fourthly, what liaison is taking place between the lead government departments on this bundle of issues? It is already clear that both the DfID and the DoH have an involvement in the field. This might extend to the Home Office if immigration matters arise. It would be a great pity if the undoubted efforts that the Government are making were not co-ordinated to maximum effect. Can the Minister say what machinery exists to ensure that the departments involved pursue a common strategy, especially in the international arena?
Finally, I do not believe that the major international initiative, called for by Dr. Dehne, from whom I quoted earlier, need be massively expensive. The Commission already runs the Europe Against Aids programme based on the principle of subsidiarity; that is to say, it contributes to useful schemes and initiatives in member states for which about 10 million ecu (£6 to £7 million) are allocated annually across the Community. The
1512
trouble is that that is confined exclusively to the current 15 member states. The European Union is also the largest donor for AIDS control in the developing world. Unfortunately, the area we are discussing, with which we share a land mass, appears to fall between the two stools of Europe and the third world. I suggest that a sister programme could be devised, using voluntary and other bodies already in existence, at a relatively low cost which could be good value for money.
There is a good basis for that at paragraph 3 of Article 129 of the Treaty of Maastricht, which states:
"The Community and the Member States shall foster co-operation with third countries and the competent international organisations in the sphere of public health".
I ask the Minister whether, during the United Kingdom's presidency, the Government will pursue that idea with the Commission with a view to establishing a programme which is fully targeted on the area that we are discussing this afternoon.
2.25 p.m.
Lord Alderdice: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rea, for his initiative in bringing forward this important matter. He has, as have other noble Lords, outlined the nature of the problem in some detail. However, there are a number of further matters I should like to raise. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some guidance in respect of one or two questions, particularly those outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock.
A few years ago there was enormous concern in this part of the world about the developing pandemic of HIV and AIDS. A considerable programme of education and disease control was embarked upon. It is encouraging to see that in the countries of northern and western Europe there has been an element of control over the epidemic. I fear that the very success of that may have blinded us at times to the fact that that has not been the case in the countries of south-western Europe and in much of the rest of the world, not least in central and eastern Europe, as the noble Lord's Question points out. For example, while the incidence of syphilis and gonorrhoea has declined in western Europe, the incidence in the former Soviet Union countries has increased from something like five per 100,000 in 1990 to 170 per 100,000 in 1995. Those are the most recent figures I have; clearly, they have continued to increase. In particular, if one looks at the Ukraine, the vulnerability of that country is demonstrated by the fact that between 1991 and 1995. the number of syphilis cases increased ten-fold. Therefore, we are looking at a very serious increase in the number of sexually transmitted diseases. We are not just talking about syphilis. We are talking about gonorrhoea, chlamydia, trichomonas and of course. HIV and AIDS.
There has been some discussion about the reasons. I shall not enumerate all of them. But, of course, there have been dramatic changes in society in central and eastern Europe: the relative freedom to travel, the changes in social mores, and the development of organised crime, to which I shall return later, which involves the sex industry and the drugs trade, a very important component in respect of HIV and AIDS.

1513
But there is another difficulty. The education programme embarked upon in that part of the world, which was markedly successful, led to a change not only in the pattern of people's behaviour but, of course, in the use of condoms as a protective device. Very little is known about the availability of condoms in central and eastern Europe but we know that in certain areas they are very restricted, simply for commercial reasons. For example, in Kazakhstan in 1995, they were available only in some pharmacies in the capital city. Moreover, in Moscow that same year, although condoms were available at most pharmacies and could be found at some commercial kiosks, supermarkets and hotels, the price of a 12-unit pack represented nearly one-third of the minimum monthly salary—a pretty expensive business in terms of protecting oneself.
I believe this to be a very important issue. Whatever the educational programme embarked upon, we should bear in mind that the very simple, straightforward and readily available precautions which may be taken in this part of the world may not be available in other places if provision is not made in that respect. I remember visiting South Africa three or four years ago. I visited a market in Johannesburg and was approached by a very pleasant young lady who supplied me with leaflets and a number of packs of condoms, as, indeed, she was supplying to everyone in the marketplace as part of an educational programme. The point is that it is okay to have the education but, if the condoms are not freely and cheaply available, then at least some of that educational component will not be successful.
When speaking about syphilis and the development of that epidemic and HIV, we must bear in mind the relationship between them because both are sexually transmitted diseases. The acquiral of syphilis, as the noble Lord, Lord Rea, pointed out, leaves one even more vulnerable to HIV because of the ulceration, but it is also true in cases of gonorrhoea, chlamydia and trichomonas that the inflammation leaves one more open to HIV.
The major increase in HIV in central and eastern Europe has not come about simply through sexual transmission; it has come about because of the enormous increase in the drug problem in that part of the world and the massive increase in HIV among intravenous drug users. I recently received figures which showed that the incidence of HIV among intravenous drug users in one part of the Ukraine rose from 1.7 per cent. in January 1995 to 56.5 per cent. in December; that is, 11 months later. So in a period of less than a year the incidence of HIV among intravenous drug users in one city had gone from 1.7 per cent.—almost nothing—to cover well over half of the intravenous drug users. We know that the incidence of intravenous drug abuse has massively increased in the former Soviet Union. That is not just because of availability. It is because many people have turned not to legitimate capitalism but to illegal organised crime.
We all know that organised crime in any part of the world involves itself in money laundering, in threats and intimidation, in the drug trade and in the sex industry. Of course, the latter is an important link in respect of
1514
all these diseases. I raise the point because, when it comes to the question of what we in this part of the world might fear and do as a result, there are important implications not only in health terms but also in terms of the control of organised crime. The freedom to travel makes it much more likely that travellers from this part of the world who are foolish enough may find themselves contracting infections when they visit the countries of central and eastern Europe. Similarly, those who visit us from central and eastern Europe may bring such infections with them. Indeed, that is a serious issue and a serious health problem.
There is also the danger to all of us not only through the development of a serious pool of infection in central and eastern Europe, which might then spread to the rest of us, but also through the development of a massive pool of organised criminal activity—for example, peddling sex and drugs. That is a major threat to us, because those who are intent upon making a profit out of organised crime and drugs will not be satisfied merely to keep their activities to those countries. We already know that there have been attempts to expand such activities to this part of the world. Of course that is a serious matter.
It is a matter of considerable disappointment to note—as the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, did—that when the task force was established as recently as February this year the European Union was not represented on that occasion despite being invited. I hope that in his reply the Minister can advise us why that was the case and can assure us that during our presidency of the European Union that kind of neglect simply will not be allowed to continue, and that in approaching this question we shall not simply restrict ourselves to public health measures such as the provision of condoms, needles, syringes and the provision of an educational campaign. We have achieved success with our campaigns and we can transmit that success to others.
I hope the Minister can assure us that the criminal side will be taken into account and that there will not merely be collaboration by health and preventive health agencies but also co-operation between police organisations, the Home Office and ministries of justice in other places. I hope that that side of the matter will be given serious consideration and that there will be co-operation between security agencies and health agencies. That is the big link between all these different diseases whether they are sexually transmitted, or transmitted in even larger numbers in central and eastern Europe through the use of intravenous drugs. I look forward to the Minister's response.
2.45 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rea, for initiating this debate and for the help that the noble Lord was able to obtain for me from Dr. Renton, who has also been most helpful to me. I extend my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, on his appointment as a spokesman with responsibility for sexually transmitted diseases. I hope he will find that post a healthy one!

1515
As many speakers have said, what these countries of eastern Europe are facing is a change of system and a breakdown of the old controls that used to keep these diseases suppressed, and a consequent epidemic. As has been said, syphilis has increased by a factor of 200 and has reached levels which might truly be called epidemic. We are looking at about one quarter of 1 per cent. of the population being actively infected. That might translate into half a dozen Members of your Lordships' House. I think we would recognise that as an undesirable number.
I do not share the worries of the noble Lord, Lord Rea, about "tarts" bringing syphilis into this country. I think the arrangements we have here for dealing with syphilis keep it very much under control. I do not think there is any danger of an epidemic starting or spreading here. Nonetheless we should consider whether we can help the former Soviet Union overcome the problems it faces.
As regards AIDS, although increases have been dramatic, the level of AIDS in the former Soviet Union and eastern Europe is much lower than it is in western countries. In Russia it is about a hundredth of the level that it is in the UK. Therefore we are not facing an epidemic, but from what has been said today it is clear that we are facing a potential epidemic. As the current level of the disease is low, we have the opportunity to move fast now to do something about it and to prevent it reaching the stage that it will undoubtedly reach if we do nothing about it.
What can be done? I think President Museveni was correct in attributing AIDS and all sexually transmitted diseases to a change in people's practices and habits. That is the root of the problem. The way forward must be through education and through providing examples of how systems can work. Russia faces enormous problems, not least that of raising taxes with which to pay doctors to treat sexually transmitted diseases. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will confirm that there is not scope for us to spend large sums of money trying to solve these problems, which relate fundamentally to major structural problems within Russia and the other countries of the former eastern bloc. Those problems have to be solved by those countries themselves, perhaps with the aid of other streams of help from us. For us simply to throw money at the problem will be nothing but counter-productive.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will be able to confirm that the new emphasis of DfID on poverty elimination will not prevent it from helping with this problem in what is fundamentally one of the richer countries of the world. As the World Bank and the European Union have acknowledged, market mechanisms cannot deliver effective control of such an epidemic in the Soviet Union because those most affected are those with the least resources. It is effectively the poor within those countries, who do not have access to such wealth as would be available in a country like the United Kingdom to deal with the problems they face. I hope that the noble Lord will allay one of my long-term fears about DfID's new policy: that we shall still feel able to devote resources to this sort of problem.
1516
There are several things that the UK should do. First. as has been said by several speakers, we should support the WHO task force. I hope that we shall have a clear and unequivocal statement from the noble Lord on that. Secondly, I hope that the Government will promote awareness of the issue within the European Commission. Many speakers have raised the problem. The European Union spends many millions on projects in Africa and Asia to promote sexual health but seems to have no mechanism to do the same in eastern Europe. That may account for the absence of those from eastern Europe from the opening session of the WHO task force. I hope that the Minister will confirm that we are determined to do something about that during our presidency of the European Union.
The HIV epidemic is at an early stage when it would respond well to intervention. We and the Europeans have a great deal of expertise in that area. It is clear that those involved in the former Soviet Union would much prefer to work with representatives from the European Union. From their cultural backgrounds, they would have a better understanding of life in the former Soviet Union and its culture than the Americans who already work there. It would be a shame if we were not able to participate because of some structural technical deficiencies within the European Union.
Thirdly, I hope that the noble Lord will enlarge on what DfID is doing to help. The noble Lord, Lord Rea, gave some examples. My noble kinsman Lord Carlisle praised the work of the British Council. I hope that we shall hear more from the Minister on what is being done. Projects led by DfID to enhance the health of local populations, to serve as models for wider development, and to support the case for reforms within the system, would be an excellent way forward. The United Kingdom is particularly good at delivering low cost but highly effective and widely accessible STD services. We have struck an excellent balance between high and low-tech services. In Russia doctors may be more concerned with the latest diagnostic test than in using the available resources in a modest but effective way. Health promotion and education activities are often neglected as they have no high-tech appeal. We can show that our model, which does not rely on a high-tech but a more down to earth public health approach, is highly effective.
We are also good at working with hard to reach, marginalised and sometimes criminalised groups in society. That would apply in particular in Russia to sex workers, migrants, homosexual men and drug users, all groups with which we have had considerable success in this country. We have strong experience in local rapid public health research to develop tailored local intervention strategies. Such a structure is not in place in the Soviet Union. Some seedcorn from us would help a great deal.
We can help, too, in developing humane medical practice which shows respect for patient confidentiality and human dignity. That was not a feature of the old regime in the Soviet Union. I am sure that we can do much to encourage it.
I look forward to the reply of the Minister. I hope that he will give encouragement to us all.
2.55 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, this has been a serious and sombre debate. We should thank the noble Lords, Lord Rea and Lord Kilmarnock, and others who have taken a deep interest in this area, and the organisations with which they have been involved and the experts to whom they themselves paid tribute during the course of the debate. To be honest, I was not fully aware of this area before I undertook the briefing and research for this debate. I have been further enlightened by the contributions from your Lordships.
This is an immensely serious problem on the doorstep of Europe, and one which adds to the serious tensions within the countries of the former Soviet Union (if I may briefly use that term) and beyond. It behoves the authorities within those countries, and those in western Europe who are in a position to help them, to give greater priority to this issue. As the noble Earl, Lord Carlisle, indicated, the Estonian authorities are now aware of the problem. I am informed that the Russian authorities have only recently updated the statistics referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice.
The figures given by the Deputy Minister for Health, Gennadi Onishchenko (at least, I believe he is still the Deputy Minister for Health—I am not sure what President Yeltsin has done with him) indicate that the rate of notification of syphilis is almost 300 per 100,000 of the population as of February this year. That is a significantly higher rate than in Britain before the application of penicillin. It is also significantly higher than the rate in many of the very poor countries in Africa where there are serious problems of STD. The overall rate is higher in certain areas—in Siberia for example—and in cases of young people, particularly young women.
Those notification rates are continuing to increase in almost all the countries: Russia, Ukraine, central Asia and the Baltics. Admittedly, as has been stated, the rate of HIV infection is relatively low in those countries at the moment; but the rate of syphilis and other STDs indicates the very real possibility that HIV transmission in the region will rise very rapidly over the next few years.
I assure the House that Her Majesty's Government share the concern of noble Lords about this appalling situation. The Department for International Development and the Department of Health are taking serious steps—both bilaterally and in collaboration with multilateral organisations—to help governments reduce the transmission of STDs and HIV/AIDS. They are also assisting them to provide cost-effective treatment to those already infected.
DfID's main channel for bilateral assistance—the Know-how Fund—is helping the Russian Government develop a co-ordinated, public health strategy for STD control throughout the Federation, and is helping Samara Oblast to establish a more effective "model" STD service. We are also working with the health department in Sverdlovsk Oblast to develop a strategy to prevent the transmission of HIV among intravenous
1518
drug users. As noble Lords rightly said, that is the main means of transmission at present. That assistance will, it is to be hoped, make STD and HIV prevention services more accessible to poor and marginalised groups (the homeless, unemployed and migrants) who experience a particularly high incidence of STDs and HIV.
Elsewhere in the region, the Know-how Fund is supporting efforts by international organisations to improve reproductive health services. Support extends from Latvia, to improve the availability of contraceptives through social marketing, to Kazakhstan and Kyrgystan in central Asia, where national governments use British know-how to develop sex education strategies, particularly for adolescents.
In addition to British Government efforts, the World Health Organisation has a vital role to play. The Department for International Development is supporting the task force referred to by noble Lords. It not only funds participants in the task force, but will also provide financial support to the secretariat. I shall say more about some of those initiatives in a moment.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, asked: is it our business? He clearly answered the question—yes, it is our business. The problem is already affecting western Europe and the UK. Dr. Alexei Gromyko, who is the WHO's adviser in STDs and Aids for the European region, has recommended that the countries of the European Union support concerted public education campaigns for the whole of Europe, western as well as eastern Europe. We shall be pursuing that.
There is already evidence that a proportion of western Europe's cases of infectious syphilis are associated directly with transmission in Russia and elsewhere in eastern Europe. A recent report on syphilis infection in England and Wales between 1994 and 1996 states that 20 per cent. of UK cases were already associated with transmission from the former Soviet Union. Moreover, there are long-term implications for eventual increase in HIV transmission from the same source. We know from our own Landmark research in Tanzania, which was supported by the British Government and the European Union, that the presence of STD greatly increases the risk of HIV transmission, by a factor of three to five, and prompt and effective treatment of sexual infections can lead to a reduction in HIV transmission.
The incidence of HIV is increasing dramatically, from a fairly low level. In the Russian Federation there were 3,841 official notifications in 1997, but in January 1998 alone there were 6,378—in other words, twice the previous year's level in one month. The deputy minister for health said that he feared an AIDS surge in Russia. He implied, moreover, that the actual number of new cases could be as much as 10 times higher than official notifications and that we should not be deceived by the relatively low reported levels.
Noble Lords have referred to the reasons for this in Russia and central Asia: the enormous social and economic changes; migration; sexual mores; and, as the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, stressed, the nexus of prostitution, crime and drugs in those unhappy parts of the world. Changes have been very rapid and have

1519
undoubtedly increased the tendency to unprotected sex and casual treatment of relationships and are associated in many cases with casualisation of life, migration, alcoholism, suicide, crime and divorce. Those are all part of the same problem—namely, the disintegration of much of society in Russia.
Another part of the problem relates to the state of health services within Russia. A relatively substantial provision not only has been discredited but is also not being used by the population. Historically, the level of STD surveillance was centred around a nationwide clinical service controlled by the ministry of health which was fairly draconian in terms of its identification and treatment. That has largely been rejected by the Russian population, who are no longer willing to subject themselves to stigma, sanctions and archaic and painful treatment. This has led to a rapid growth in poor quality, private sector STD treatment and also in self-medication, much of which is totally ineffective.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, asked whether we would throw money at the problem. It is clear that substantial resources in Russia are still being spent on health, but they are being spent ineffectively. Expertise, technical advice and capital help from both public and private sources is in many cases the most important way in which we can help, expertise perhaps being more important than money.
In terms of the British Government's response to this crisis, there are clearly some things we can do on our own and much that we can do through the WHO and the UN and potentially through the EU. We have substantial experience and technical qualifications. We have the experience of our AIDS education process and the STD services and information to which the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, referred. Much of that is relatively easily transferred to other countries provided we can establish the networks and the willingness to learn and listen.
Starting from scratch, at the beginning of this year as we became increasingly aware of the crisis, the Department for International Development now expects to invest up to £1 million in helping the Russian Government to develop a comprehensive strategy for combating sexually transmitted diseases. That will
include some of the projects to which I referred. It will also include assistance to health departments in various parts of Russia and help to develop strategies for preventing the spread of HIV among intravenous drug users. That will comprise primarily a health promotion campaign aimed at intravenous drug users, peer group counselling and the development of targeted health services, of all of which we have substantial experience in this country. It could serve as a model for other cities in Russia and other countries where HIV transmission through intravenous drug users is the most serious problem.
There may be other areas in which we can help. I was taken with a reference by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, to the supply and price of condoms, which is an obvious but important aspect of the control of the transmission of these diseases. We are already helping in both Latvia and Moscow to try to develop the social marketing of condoms and we should perhaps
1520
look at developing that area in association with some of our partners. The Know-how Fund, to which I referred, is already providing substantial assistance in Russia, in St. Petersburg in particular, and in Kazakhstan, and elsewhere is providing sex education. In Latvia the social marketing of contraceptives is being supported. The Know-how Fund is not a money fund: it is primarily a fund which provides expertise and technical help.
There is also the whole question of research and knowledge generation and new technologies and innovative health approaches are needed. We are making a significant contribution in those areas as well. We are supporting the MRC's action in search of an HIV vaccine and we are also supporting work at the London and Liverpool Schools of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.
In terms of the work that is being done with the World Health Organisation, the DfID representatives are fully engaged in that work, and British expertise will be used. The task force to which noble Lords referred recommended urgent action for the control of potential STD epidemics in the region. It focused on prevention and health promotion designed particularly for at-risk groups and implementing a public health strategy for controlling STDs, with stress on access, confidentiality and the integration of STD care with primary and family planning sectors. The World Health Organisation is clearly the main multilateral organisation for transmitting those efforts.
A number of noble Lords criticised the lack of activity within the European Union on this matter. My honourable friend the Minister for Health. Tessa Jowell, has taken on board the problems within this area and agrees that some consideration at European Union level will be taken; whether or not the 30th April Council meeting is the appropriate point is not clear. It is not at this point on the agenda. She has certainly undertaken to pursue that issue with her colleagues.
It is true that the powers of the European Union are relatively limited in this area under the article in the Maastricht Treaty referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock. They will be extended slightly under the Amsterdam Treaty, but that has not yet been ratified. Much will depend on the efforts of member states acting collaboratively rather than through the European Union itself. Nevertheless, we agree that the issue should receive greater prominence in the public health strategy of the European Union in conjunction with other activities which are being pursued under the British presidency. These relate particularly to the drugs trade, the trafficking in women and other sex trades and other international crime. These are issues which my friends in the Home Office and elsewhere are pursuing with their colleagues in our war on international crime during the British presidency. Much of that relates to the problems that arise in this area. In addition, noble Lords referred to the UNAIDS programme, in which we are participating fully and trying to mobilise both agency, NGO and private sources in order to tackle the problem.

1521
We sometimes forget in this country that we are in a privileged position in that our free and open access to genito-urinary medicine and clinics ensure that confidential information, testing and treatment for all sexually transmitted diseases is readily available to us and to visitors. That was not the case under the old Soviet Union and it is not the case in the newly independent states. We also carry out national and local health promotion campaigns for HIV and other sexually transmitted infections. We are committed to transferring
1522
this experience to partners in eastern and central Europe. We are working with WHO and UNAIDS to support national governments as they develop effective public health responses to these threats. If I have not answered points raised by noble Lords, I shall check Hansard and write to them. However, I think that what I have said indicates our concern about these epidemics and our determination to ensure that we use all means to help those countries to tackle the serious social and medical problems that they face.
House adjourned at eleven minutes past three o'clock.

  Internet: Addiction
  Internet: Addiction
  Northern Ireland: Rehabilitation of Offenders Legislation
  Northern Ireland: Rehabilitation of Offenders Legislation
  Northern Ireland: Gun Club Members' Weapons
  Northern Ireland: Gun Club Members' Weapons
  Northern Ireland: Stolen Weapons
  Northern Ireland: Stolen Weapons
  Children Act Day Care Provisions: Transfer of Responsibility
  Children Act Day Care Provisions: Transfer of Responsibility
  Canthaxanthin
  Canthaxanthin
  BSE: Transmission
  BSE: Transmission
  BSE Cattle: On-farm Disposal
  BSE Cattle: On-farm Disposal
  CAP Reform
  CAP Reform
  Missing Army Weapons
  Missing Army Weapons