Sitting of 31 March 1998

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS

  TAMAR BRIDGE BILL
  Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
  Read the Third time, and passed.

  LLOYDS TSB BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Monday 20 April at Seven o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions
  ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

    Environmentally Sensitive Areas (Dredging)
    Mr. Bayley: What action the Government are taking to reduce the amount of gravel and sand dredged from river beds in environmentally sensitive areas. [35440]
    The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning (Mr. Richard Caborn): The Environment Act 1995 requires all mineral permissions to be reviewed and conditions to be approved by the mineral planning authority. It is for the mineral planning authority—in my hon. Friend's case, North Yorkshire—to determine what new conditions are appropriate in the circumstances of any particular case.
    Mr. Bayley: Is my hon. Friend aware of the concern in York and North Yorkshire about mineral planning authorities' inability, because of the high cost of compensation, to revoke permissions given way back in the 1950s to dredge in a way that would these days be regarded as environmentally unsatisfactory? Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer still considering, as he said he was in his May Budget, a review of the fiscal terms applicable to mineral extraction? Will my hon. Friend examine the law in Germany which, with regard to peat extraction, when a planning permission is revoked, limits compensation to the cost of the investment that the
    1018
    landowner has made in the site and does not relate it to the loss of extraction—unlike a revocation of planning permission in this country?
    Mr. Caborn: It is true that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is reviewing aggregate taxes, as he made clear in his statement on the Budget. In addition, North Yorkshire still has under review the appraisal of the mineral extraction in the case to which my hon. Friend refers.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: I am sure that the Minister realises the importance of the question asked by the hon. Member for City of York (Mr. Bayley), especially in relation to the fiscal regime. If the Chancellor decides to tax digging aggregates out of holes, that will surely put greater pressure on river bed and sea bed extraction and make it cheaper to import aggregates. Will the Minister please make vigorous representations to the Chancellor to examine carefully what could be a disastrous policy for the United Kingdom aggregates industry?
    Mr. Caborn: As I said, further research is being undertaken into mineral taxes. I have no doubt that the point made by the hon. Gentleman will be factored into my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's thinking before he makes a decision.

    Government of London
    Mrs. Gordon: When he expects to publish a White Paper on the future government of London. [35441]
    The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): I announced last week the publication of a White Paper, "A Mayor and Assembly for London", which sets out our proposals for a new Greater London authority made up of an elected mayor and a separately elected assembly.
    Mrs. Gordon: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. I was quite impressed that, no sooner had I tabled my question, the White Paper was published. That highlights the speed and determination with which the Government are bringing democracy back to the governance of London. Does not my right hon. Friend consider it fitting that we should be discussing the matter today, the 12th anniversary of the abolition of the Greater London council when the previous Tory Government handed over vital London services to unelected quangos? How do the Government intend to encourage the people of London to vote on 7 May, when I am sure there will be a resounding yes vote?
    Mr. Prescott: The House will have noticed that, although my hon. Friend is a new Member, she has considerable influence on the Department's production of White Papers. She gives me the opportunity to recognise the anniversary of the abolition of the GLC and compare the Government's approach to the voice of London with that of the previous Administration, who abolished the GLC without any consultation. It is vital that as many people as possible vote on 7 May. We must all do our part, even if I have to stand in front of a goalpost.
    Mr. Burstow: As the White Paper acknowledges that Londoners want a new non-confrontational style of

    1019
    politics in London, and as the Government have been persuaded of the case for proportional representation in electing the assembly, are they equally open-minded on the policy of extending non-confrontational politics to the rest of local government by introducing fair votes for elections to town and county halls?
    Mr. Prescott: I do not know whether I am the best person to advocate a non-confrontational approach to politics—each to his own—but we have made a judgment that the supplementary vote and the additional member system are appropriate and will encourage more Londoners to vote on 7 May and elect the mayor and assembly for which they are waiting.
    Mr. Ottaway: Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that when the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Bill was considered on Report, the Minister for London and Construction gave an undertaking that full information about the Government's proposals would be available before Londoners voted in the referendum? Does he agree that all sources of revenue to the Greater London authority are of paramount interest to voters? Is he aware that the White Paper leaves open whether a so-called congestion tax and a parking levy would be a source of revenue for the new authority? We know that the Liberal Democrats want it, but will he come clean before the referendum and honour the Minister's pledge? Will there be a tax on motorists—yes or no?
    Mr. Prescott: I made it absolutely clear last week that matters of congestion and parking levies are being considered. The hon. Gentleman will have his answer when the White Paper is published.

    Local Government Finance
    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: When he last met representatives of the Local Government Association to discuss the distribution of local government finance in 1998–99. [35442]
    The Minister for Local Government and Housing (Ms Hilary Armstrong): The Local Government Association had the opportunity to discuss the distribution of the 1998–99 settlement at our meeting on Wednesday 14 January.
    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: The hon. Lady will be aware that the recent distribution of grant to local authorities has resulted in discrimination against shire counties. Looking to the future, will the Government bear it in mind that notwithstanding the apparent high level of the area cost adjustment for London and the south-east, if we detach the south-east and look only at the shire counties, it is clear that they receive far less than other counties and well below the national average—£792 per head compared with £869?
    Ms Armstrong: Several questions on the amounts given to shire authorities have been tabled. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that there was no discrimination; we have moved to a fairer settlement this year. He knows that no changes were made to the area cost adjustment under
    1020
    the Conservatives. It is under consideration this year. We have commissioned additional research on the specific cost element of the area cost adjustment.
    Dr. Kumar: Is my hon. Friend aware that there was an £8 million shortfall this year in the cash allocated for the business rate in Redcar and Cleveland? After yesterday's announcements, will she ensure that my constituents do not lose out next time on the business rate?
    Ms Armstrong: The Government published further consultation papers yesterday on the reform of local government. On the business tax, we aim to balance the need for redistribution and stability with local authorities' ability to develop strong relationships with business. The ability to vary the national business rate at local level will meet those objectives. We look forward to the responses of all interested parties.
    Mr. Gummer: Does the hon. Lady accept that, this year, council tax rises have been significantly greater in shire areas than elsewhere? That suggests that the distribution of the money has been unhappy for country areas. Will she look closely at why council taxes have risen more steeply in many rural areas? If it turns out that those areas have received less than they should have done, will she undertake to come forward with new proposals for next year?
    Ms Armstrong: It is not for me to reconsider the settlement once the House has agreed it. We regularly examine the distribution to ensure that it is as fair as possible. I have examined the Conservative allegations, which the right hon. Gentleman has repeated. There is an element that he has forgotten—metropolitan areas are facing elections this year; shire counties are not.
    Mr. Pike: However we juggle around with the figures to make them fairer—which we clearly have done—if there is a financial ceiling, we are bound to please some authorities and upset others. Should not we reconsider how much of the burden should be borne by council tax payers? We need a larger allocation from the Government to meet local government expenditure.
    Ms Armstrong: The issue is the balance between central and local funding. After the debacle of the poll tax, too much was taken to the centre. Central Government controlled not just how much money local authorities received, but what they spent it on. That has led to an unhealthy relationship between central and local government. We want a better balance, ensuring that areas of need have their needs properly addressed and that there is a fair distribution of Government grant.
    Sir Norman Fowler: In spite of the Government's changes to the distribution of grant, which have undoubtedly favoured Labour councils, do not the latest figures show that of the 25 councils with the highest band D council tax, 23 are under Labour control, one is Liberal Democrat and the other is a Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition? Why does the Minister think Labour councils tax more? She has mentioned the elections. Should not the public take that fact into account when they vote?
    Ms Armstrong: The right hon. Gentleman knows that we never believed that band D properly reflected what

    1021
    was happening, and for this reason: the majority of properties in the majority of Labour authorities fall into bands A and B. The amount charged at band D therefore has to be higher because authorities have to raise the necessary amount from bands A and B. Indeed, from averages that we published last week, Labour councils charge an average of £590 and Tory councils an average of £626. I invite the electorate to take that into account.
    Mr. Skinner: Before anybody runs away with the idea that marginal changes to revenue support grant distribution this financial year disbenefited the few shires still under Tory control, should we not remember that the lowest grant made to any shire county was that to Derbyshire, which has nine Labour Members? I therefore hope that my hon. Friend and others on the Treasury Bench will look at the matter very carefully with a view to ensuring that Derbyshire is not badly affected in this outcome and the one next year.
    Ms Armstrong: Representations are being made to the Government about Derbyshire, and it would therefore not be proper for me to comment on the matter today. I assure my hon. Friend, however, that the Government are determined to see a fair distribution of Government grant throughout local government.
    Mr. Flight: What assessment he has made of the impact of the local authority funding formula for 1998–99 on the provision of services by shire authorities. [35443]
    Ms Armstrong: The impact of any change in the formula will depend on local authorities' decisions on the size and allocation of their budgets. Shire counties have gained significantly as a result of the additional £835 million that we have provided for schools this year. For the first time in four years, we have provided an increase for the services delivered by shire districts.
    Mr. Flight: Taking West Sussex as a good example of a shire county, we see that spending on social services has been cut in real terms. Spending on other services, other than the Government's allocation to education, has stayed approximately equal. When allocations were made, did the Government consider how shire spending would work out? Why are allocations biased against shire counties? West Sussex has had quite enough attacks on extra housing, let alone on social services spending.
    Ms Armstrong: I dispute that there was discrimination against shire counties. When dealing with a pot of money, one must distribute it fairly and properly, matching decisions with where need is and how money should follow need. We took particular decisions on standard spending assessments this year, which were calculated to deliver fairness. We recognised the particular need of shire districts and gave them an increase for the first time in four years. Due to particular pressure on education, we ensured that shire counties, along with other local education authorities, received a fair and additional allocation.
    Mr. Watts: Does my hon. Friend agree that if we want to assess whether the grant system is fair we need to take account of the settlements of the previous 18 years, which were fiddled by the previous Government to such an
    1022
    extent that Westminster receives a better grant than Liverpool? Does she agree that she is trying to restore some of the fairness in the system after 18 years of the previous Administration's fiddling?
    Ms Armstrong: We said before the election and in the manifesto that we wanted a fairer system of grant allocation. We have told the House about the manner in which we have changed the calculation of the indexes for examining economic and social need. That was done according to a formula agreed with the Local Government Association as a whole and with all its parts. That fairer allocation was worked out against a set of indicators that everybody agreed should exist. That was the main change. It meant that some authorities did better than others. Certainly there was a real change in the way need was assessed. We believe that the previous Administration did not address need in anything other than a partisan way.
    Mr. Yeo: Will the Minister confirm to the House what has become clear during the past 10 minutes—first, that the Government have fiddled the formula so that Labour councils, however incompetent, extravagant, or corrupt, receive more money than before and, secondly, that council tax payers, whether their homes are in band A, B, C, D, E, F or G, pay more if they live under a Labour council than if they live under a Conservative council?
    Ms Armstrong: Addressing fairness is not fiddling.

    Landfill
    Helen Jackson: What assessment he has made of the impact of landfill proposals announced in the Budget on his environmental objectives. [35444]
    The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): The recent review of the landfill tax indicated that it is already having some impact on behaviour but that the rate needs to be higher to ensure a significant increase in waste recycling, recovery, and minimisation. I therefore welcome the Chancellor's decision to increase the standard rate of the tax.
    Helen Jackson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the whole point of a tax on landfill should be not so much fiscal as environmental? There is some concern that the tax is falling heavily on local authorities, as the major waste disposal agents. What is he doing to ensure that the revenues generated from the tax are planned in a co-ordinated way, so as to bring genuine benefit to environmental projects that create jobs in the regions? When is he likely to undertake an overall review of landfill practice to ensure that it is meeting our environmental objectives?
    Mr. Meacher: I agree that the purpose of the tax is primarily environmental rather than revenue raising. The environmental bodies scheme achieves that purpose to a degree, and about £68 million has been passed to enrolled environmental schemes under ENTRUST for use in environmentally sensitive projects, especially recycling. Customs and Excise is undertaking a review of the scheme and the Government want more of the money to go towards helping local authorities to increase recycling facilities.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall meeting representatives of British Salt,

    1023
    from Middlewich in my constituency, and of ICI, who came to lobby him about their case concerning the payment of landfill tax? Does he agree that the pumping of brine, the extraction of salt and the returning of the material to underground cavities has no adverse environmental impact whatever? Will he ensure that in future those who carry out such activities will not have to pay the tax?
    Mr. Meacher: The hon. Lady came with a delegation to see me about the matter. It is a difficult issue because we must be exactly sure of the definition of environmental impact, which is disputed between the Environment Agency and the businesses concerned. I am anxious that there should be a fair conclusion to that long-standing dispute and I undertake to write to the hon. Lady.
    Mr. David Taylor: I welcome the Minister's answer on landfill tax. The twin and equally ugly sister of landfill is opencast. Does he agree that that should be brought within the scope of environmental taxes so that the real costs incurred by nearby communities are brought into the public domain?
    Mr. Meacher: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend that major environmental impacts are caused by opencast, which is being examined under the energy review.

    Regional Development Agencies
    Mr. Ruffley: What representations he has received on the accountability of RDAs. [35446]
    Mr. Caborn: We have received a number of representations about the accountability of RDAs. They will be non-departmental public bodies. As such, they will be accountable to Ministers, but they will also be required to consult the designated regional chamber and account for their activities to that chamber.
    Mr. Ruffley: Is the Minister aware of the genuine concern felt by many rural interest organisations throughout the country that rural interests are not properly protected by the Regional Development Agencies Bill? Will he address that concern by ensuring that the RDAs produce an annual report, showing the effects of their activities on rural interests in their region? Will he further ensure that that report is laid before and debated by Parliament?
    Mr. Caborn: I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will make some of those points during tomorrow's debates on the remaining stages of the Bill. Rural areas will be represented on the boards. The RDAs' annual reports will contain an element dealing with rural areas, and those reports will be deposited in the Library.
    Mr. Dawson: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is essential that organisations from rural areas are fully engaged in the RDAs? Does he further agree that Lancaster—being at the centre of the north-west region, which stretches from Cheshire to the Scottish border—is ideally placed to represent those rural interests in a north-west regional development agency?
    Mr. Caborn: As I have just said, rural areas will be represented on the boards. I assure my hon. Friend that
    1024
    the Government will approach the problems of rural areas more effectively than has previously been the case. We will ensure that issues such as deprivation and underemployment in rural areas are addressed positively.

    Local Government Conduct
    Mr. Pickles: When he next plans to meet representatives of local government in shire areas to discuss the conduct of local government. [35447]
    Ms Armstrong: Earlier this month, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister chaired a meeting of the central-local partnership, the forum where senior Ministers and leading Local Government Association members discuss major issues affecting local government. Two further meetings of the partnership are planned for later this year.
    Mr. Pickles: Those who attended that meeting were left with the impression that the Government favour the Local Government (Experimental Arrangements) Bill, which was introduced in another place and proposes a fundamental change to the way in which local authorities are conducted. The Bill is so important that it will receive its Second Reading in this Chamber, but the only way in which it can proceed is if the Government provide additional time. County councillors have formed the impression that the Government are favourable to that view. When can we expect an announcement?
    Ms Armstrong: The hon. Gentleman clearly has not had a chance to read last week's Adjournment debate, when this matter was discussed. We are always keen to support proposals from local government to ensure that it is more responsive to local people. I understand that the hon. Gentleman's county council is interested in proposing ideas for experimentation. The Bill addresses experimentation in local government; it is not the Government saying, "This is what you ought to do." We need to be sure that local government has the opportunity to experiment. That is in the hands of the House, including Opposition Members.
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: I thank my hon. Friend for her efforts to try to improve the conduct of local government. In the experiments to which she referred, her attention will be drawn to the need to bring the standard spending assessment nearer the actual expenditure of local government. Will she try to narrow the gap between the SSA and expenditure to help the conduct of local government?
    Ms Armstrong: Yesterday, we published three consultation papers governing local authority finance in which we addressed the future of grant distribution and the SSA, and offered ideas. We are also encouraging ideas from local government.
    It is important that central Government listen to and work with local government. I look forward to the responses to yesterday's document.
    Sir Norman Fowler: Let me returning to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles). Is it not a fact that the Local Government (Experimental Arrangements) Bill is a

    1025
    controversial measure drafted entirely by the Government but introduced in another place by a private Member? Is it not also a fact that the Government want it to go on to the statute book without a Second Reading debate in this place on its principle? Surely that is unacceptable. Is it not another example of the Government attempting to bypass the House and the normal checks of parliamentary democracy?
    Ms Armstrong: I seem to remember that the previous Administration pursued the same route with a Bill to open up committees in local government. I am not in charge of, nor can I control, the amount of time that Opposition Members want to take debating Bills on Second Reading. If Opposition Members were prepared to curtail discussion on other Bills, we would welcome a Second Reading debate in private Members' time. We are talking about a private Member's Bill, not a Government Bill. When the Government have to take forward such measures, we shall ensure that they receive proper attention in Government time.

    Rail Rolling Stock Market
    Jane Griffiths: If he will make a statement on the operation of the rail rolling stock market. [35470]
    Mr. Prescott: On 21 January I asked the Rail Regulator to conduct a wide-ranging inquiry into the operation of the rolling stock leasing market and report his findings to me by mid-April. We will decide whether further action is required in the light of the regulator's recommendations.
    Jane Griffiths: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the National Audit Office has reported that the value of the rail rolling stock companies' cash flow was £2.9 billion, but that, because the sale was rushed through by the Tories on the basis of inadequate valuations, the nation's trains—our trains—were sold off for only £1.8 billion? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the privatisation of the rail rolling stock companies was the Tories' great train robbery?
    Mr. Prescott: There is absolutely no doubt, especially after the National Audit Office's report, that there was a scandalous sale of the leasing companies and much of the privatised railways: it was identified that assets had been undersold and that a massive profit had been made. The Department will appear before the audit committee, and I hope that the Rail Regulator will make some recommendations in respect of the changes that need to be made.

    Rail Freight
    Mr. Connarty: What steps he proposes to encourage freight on to the railways. [35471]
    The Minister of Transport (Dr. Gavin Strang): Our proposals to create a new rail authority will help to ensure that freight interests are properly considered in the strategic planning of Britain's railway network. We will continue to improve the operation of the freight grants scheme, building on the success of last year. Our White Paper on integrated transport will include other proposals for encouraging rail freight.
    Mr. Connarty: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. I am sure that he agrees with me that it is necessary
    1026
    to put more freight on to rail so that we can reduce the pollution and congestion on our roads. I am sure also that he welcomes the decision by English, Welsh and Scottish Railways to put a new rail head into Grangemouth, the largest port in Scotland, which will help with the task of reducing pollution and congestion on our roads. Will my right hon. Friend give us some specific information about the grants that he is making available and what he has done to untangle the red tape that the previous Government put in the way of those who wished to use the grants for rail freight?
    Dr. Strang: We certainly welcome the investment by EWS and other rail freight companies and we want to see the maximum progress made. We have simplified the grants arrangement and eliminated all the red tape. Whereas the money available for rail freight grants in the previous financial year was £15 million, we have increased it to £30 million in the current year, virtually all of which will be spent. Next year we are allocating £40 million for rail freight grants. On freight, the Government are putting their money where their mouth is.
    Sir Norman Fowler: Is it not a fact that EWS Railways has, without subsidy, increased the amount of freight that it carries by introducing new services, and is to invest from its own resources some £650 million on 280 new locomotives and up to 5,000 new wagons? Is that not a significant success in transferring freight from road to rail? Is it not also a significant success for the policy of rail privatisation?
    Dr. Strang: The right hon. Gentleman should check his facts. The idea that EWS Railways receives no subsidy for rail freight totally ignores the concession in relation to the channel tunnel; it totally ignores the money that EWS got from the taxpayer to take over the state assets; and it totally fails to take into account the fact that the Government are putting £1.8 billion into the railway network this year.
    Mr. Snape: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the main competitor—[Interruption.]I will continue when the bickering stops. Does my right hon. Friend accept that the main competitor to long-distance rail freight is the heavy goods vehicle? If we are talking about subsidy, is it not a fact that, all over the country, bridges are being strengthened to take 44-tonne vehicles in accordance with the wishes of the European Community—
    Dr. Strang rose—
    Mr. Snape: I have not finished yet; my right hon. Friend must forgive me. Would it not be sensible to maintain the Government's restrictions on the use of 44-tonne vehicles to ensure that as much long-distance freight as possible goes by rail?
    Dr. Strang: My hon. Friend raises an important point. Under European law, we will be required to accept 40-tonne, five-axle lorries on our roads from 1 January 1999. We have to take a decision—it certainly makes sense to do so—on whether we will allow 44-tonne lorries with six axles, which means less impact on the roads in future. We will have to take a decision on that in the next few months.

    Transport Requirements (Rural Areas)
    Mr. Flight: What assessment he has made of the role of the private car in meeting the transport requirements of people in rural areas. [35472]
    Dr. Strang: The Government are aware that people in rural areas have to rely more on the private car for access to jobs and services than do people in towns or cities. The Chancellor has announced an additional £50 million a year to improve the public transport alternative in rural areas.
    Mr. Flight: Given that the Government acknowledge that the car is a necessity for those living in the countryside, do they wish to insult people with their offer of £50 million, which amounts to virtually nothing per citizen? Why has policy yet again been aimed against the interests of those living in the countryside?
    Dr. Strang: The hon. Gentleman had better think again. If he thinks that £50 million a year is not a significant benefit to rural bus services, he should look at the current level of subsidy. He is right that, for many people, the private motor car is indispensable. That is why he should welcome the fact that the Chancellor has announced a new vehicle excise duty rate of £100 for the least polluting, most efficient vehicles.
    Mr. Hanson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a private car is of assistance only to those who have one, and that many of my constituents in rural areas do not have access to private vehicles? Will he comment on the fact that, in Wales alone, 33 million bus journeys a year were lost through deregulation? That £50 million would certainly begin to rebuild bus services and give many of my constituents real access to real services in towns outside the rural areas.
    Dr. Strang: My hon. Friend makes an important point. No less than a fifth of households in rural areas have no access to a motor car. That is why we have not only put another £50 million into rural transport but, by increasing the fuel duty rebate for buses to ensure that they are not subject to the higher duty on fuel, we have given them the benefit of £40 million. Moreover, we are looking at how we can more effectively regulate buses.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: Although the Government have put £50 million into rural areas, did not the previous Conservative Government's introduction of the fuel price tax escalator take £4.5 billion from motorists, and will not the changes now introduced by the Labour Government take £9 billion from motorists during the lifetime of the Parliament? Would that not be more than enough to reduce vehicle excise duty for all motorists driving small vehicles up to 1600 cc, not to £100 but to just £10? Would that not help rural motorists to stay on the road while encouraging them to use less polluting vehicles?
    Dr. Strang: But £100 for the cleanest vehicles is a good start. If the hon. Gentleman takes the trouble to talk to private bus operators in his constituency, he will find that, when they take into account the £50 million and the fact that the increase in the fuel duty rebate is worth £40 million, they will tell him, as they are telling me, that this is the best Budget that the bus industry has ever had.
    Mrs. McGuire: Unlike the Conservative party, I welcome the investment in rural transport announced by
    1028
    the Chancellor. Does my right hon. Friend agree, however, that, in parallel with urban transport management, it is essential that we have rural transport management to encourage people out of their cars and on to public transport, resulting in greater integration? Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that, in planning rural transport, the Government will consider the integration of services, which will meet the needs of education, work and leisure in rural communities in Britain?
    Dr. Strang: My hon. Friend makes a number of important points. Of course, some families in rural areas have no alternative to the motor car because there is no bus service anywhere near them. But, as has already been pointed out, many households in rural areas do not have access to a car, and that is why public transport is so important to them, and why my hon. Friend will be looking forward to the new White Paper which will announce further initiatives in that area.
    Mr. Chope: The Government pay lip service to rural public transport but, in reality, they are raising £1.7 billion extra in taxes next year from motorists; investing less than 10 per cent. of that in public transport and less than 1 per cent. of it in rural public transport; and the sum of £50 million is even less than the £60 million which is being raised by the new secret £25 tax on every new car that is registered. Are not the Government totally out of touch with the realities of rural life where, for most people, the car is a necessity rather than a luxury?
    Dr. Strang: The Conservative party's green manifesto of 1997 states:
    "We need to consider new ways to break the link between desirable economic growth and undesirable traffic growth. We will continue to encourage the manufacture of more fuel efficient vehicles through annual increases in fuel duty."
    That was entitled "Leadership Abroad, Responsibility at Home". I do not see much sign of that now from the Conservative party.
    Mr. Reed: Does my right hon. Friend agree that quality bus initiatives—joint partnerships between private bus companies and local authorities—will benefit from the £50 million, and that that £50 million could be translated throughout the country into a series of schemes that will benefit a vast number of people throughout rural areas? Does he further agree—I am sure that he has already done so this afternoon—that, in reality, many people in rural villages, particularly in my constituency of Loughborough, do not have access to their car during the day once it has been parked in the town centre? An integrated transport system will ensure that such cars stay at home and that buses go to some of those rural villages that have been so badly damaged during the past 18 years.
    Dr. Strang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of that £50 million, £45 million will go to the bus industry, but £5 million will be available for community transport and for other types of transport in rural areas. Some Labour Members, including my hon. Friend, are considering innovative methods of rural transport in their constituencies.

    Traffic Congestion (A380)
    Mr. Sanders: What proposals he has to reduce traffic congestion on the A380 between Newton Abbot and Torbay. [35473]
    Dr. Strang: The A380 is a local road for which Devon county council is the highway authority. It therefore falls to the council to develop and implement any measures to reduce traffic congestion on the route.
    Mr. Sanders: That was not a particularly helpful answer, given the traffic congestion on that route. At the moment, we are waiting for approval of a private finance initiative scheme to build a bypass, but it looks as though it will not be forthcoming. What specific advice would the Minister give the responsible authority to reduce traffic congestion now and in the future?
    Dr. Strang: As part of our roads review, we are developing a new appraisal framework to enable us to prioritise road schemes. Although it will be applied to the trunk road programme, it will be available for application to local authority schemes, particularly public-private partnership schemes, which is how the hon. Gentleman's county council has decided to go ahead with that scheme. He may be aware that the county council will require at least another two years' work before it is in a position to sign a contract for such a scheme, so there is no question of the Government delaying the scheme.

    Heavy Goods Vehicle Operators
    Caroline Flint: What measures he proposes against illegal heavy goods vehicle operators. [35474]
    Dr. Strang: In my recent speech to the annual conference of the Freight Transport Association, I announced consultation on proposals for the detention of illegally operated heavy goods vehicles. We are determined to take tough action against cowboy operators who undermine the great law-abiding majority of road hauliers.
    Caroline Flint: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the former Transport Minister, Steve Norris, who I understand is now chief trucker for the Road Haulage Association, agreed when he was a Transport Minister with the measures now being taken by my right hon. Friend, even though he did not receive backing from the Government of the day? Is not that another case of the previous Government parking good ideas in the layby while the new Labour Government move us into the fast lane? My right hon. Friend has my assurance that the many law-abiding road hauliers in my constituency will raise their Yorkie bars in salute to his action.
    Dr. Strang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is another example of a policy which this Government are implementing but which past Ministers make excuses for not implementing during the 18 years of Conservative rule because they were not allowed to. I welcome the support of the Road Haulage Association and the Freight Transport Association for those proposals.
    Mr. Boswell: Although I do not condone cowboy operators, will the Minister bear in mind two specific
    1030
    points? First, he must ensure at least reasonable equality of treatment on overloading as between the various magistrates courts across the country, to encourage them towards consistency of treatment. Secondly, as the Minister is contemplating higher lorry weights with more axles, will he remember the importance of ensuring that those weights are evenly distributed and that any axles are adequately compensated?
    Dr. Strang: That is a fair point. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman does not condone cowboy operations. He must understand that it is not just a question of fairness to law-abiding operators, but that cowboy operators tend to be those who are involved in accidents, who are a threat on the roads to the vast majority of people who try to travel about safely, and who offend in relation to our environmental objectives. I therefore hope that 1 have the whole House's support in clamping down on cowboy operators.

    Private Motoring
    Mr. Brady: If he will make a statement on the costs of private motoring. [35475]
    The Minister for Transport in London (Ms Glenda Jackson): Information on retail prices is released by the Office for National Statistics. Over the period 1974 to 1997, motoring costs have stayed about the same in real terms. In the year ending December 1997, the cost of private motoring increased by slightly less than the all-items retail prices index.
    Mr. Brady: Is the Minister aware that the Chancellor's Budget changes in motoring taxation will impact particularly hard on the low-paid and those on fixed incomes? Is she further aware that a typical unskilled manual worker will pay £66 more a year, and that a retired couple on state pensions will pay another £18 a year? Does she share my concern that the tax will hit those who are least able to pay?
    Ms Jackson: I wonder at the hon. Gentleman's somewhat late concern for those who are unable to pay. He may be interested to know that in the last decade of the previous Administration, the cost of motoring in real terms increased by about 5 per cent., compared with increases of about 21 per cent. for rail fares and 16 per cent. for bus and coach fares. There is no distance between those figures and the fact that at that time the previous Administration were forcing through legislation on two particularly unpopular privatizations—those of the buses and of the railways.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will my hon. Friend join me in advising hon. Members that, from tomorrow, they will be able to avoid the costs of private motoring by getting on their bikes and claiming the 6.2p a mile cycle allowance?
    Ms Jackson: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her work in producing this marked change in funding for transport as it applies to hon. Members, which is a giant step forward in improving the environment for everyone.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The new Labour Government are supposedly promoting fairness. I wish to

    1031
    speak for my constituents in the county of Cheshire. My constituency contains a lot of rural areas and remote rural villages. Does she believe it fair that my council tax payers should not only meet a council tax increase of nearly 16 per cent., but face such a huge increase in motoring costs—especially the heavy increase in the price of petrol—when they live in areas where there never has been any public transport, and never will be, despite the limited inducements provided by the Government in the Budget? Is that an example of Labour Government fairness?
    Ms Jackson: The Government do not share the hon. Gentleman's philosophy of despair. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has pointed out, the Chancellor has found £50 million, every year for three years, which will be specifically targeted to create rural bus services. He has also increased the fuel duty rebate to the tune of £40 million. We are as much concerned with reducing and reversing the seemingly inevitable tide of environmental pollution as we are with creating a properly integrated public transport system.
    Mr. Maclennan: Does the Minister recognise that in parts of the country where there are no public transport arrangements and bus services to be assisted by the £50 million—remote, rural, sparsely populated areas such as the highlands and islands of Scotland—the price of petrol is rising at a substantially higher rate than in other parts of the country? Will she undertake to examine with other Ministers what is being done in other parts of the European Union to deal with such inequity? Will she consider lowering value added tax on petrol in such areas to increase the possibility of people being removed from their communities by their own cars, and not by the impossibility of living there?
    Ms Jackson: Ministers have already pointed out that the Chancellor made his Budget changes because he was cognisant of the fact that people in many rural areas depend exclusively on private cars because of the failures of the previous Administration. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out the particular difficulties in his area. I have touched on the amounts of money that the Chancellor found for the creation of public transport systems in remote areas, and we have also touched on reduced vehicle excise duty for environmentally friendly cars.
    1032
    I do not believe that it is beyond the wit of people, particularly those whom the right hon. Gentleman represents, to take best advantage of the Government's proposal to create a properly integrated public transport system that meets the needs of far-flung areas.

    London Transport
    Mr. McNulty: What steps he proposes to improve transport provision in London. [35476]
    Ms Glenda Jackson: We have recently announced a number of proposals that will improve transport in London, including a public-private partnership to address London Underground's investment needs; an extra £365 million for London Transport over the next two years; the establishment of new passenger transport services on the Thames; the introduction of revised traffic management and parking guidance; and, through the new Greater London authority, better planning and integration of transport services under Transport for London.
    Mr. McNulty: Those announcements are much welcomed by the people of London. For all their hot air and blather, all that the Tories left Londoners was a £1.2 million backlog in tube investment. Does the Minister agree that the present Government have done more in the last two weeks than the other lot did in the last 18 years?
    Ms Jackson: My hon. Friend would not expect me to disagree with that factually accurate statement.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: The Deputy Prime Minister recently announced the privatisation of London Underground infrastructure. Bearing in mind the fact that the operation is to remain in the public sector, how can the Minister be sure to attract the necessary additional private capital? Will London Underground borrowing remain within the Treasury rules on the public sector borrowing requirement?
    Ms Jackson: My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister did not announce a privatisation. He announced a third and middle way: it is neither overt nationalisation nor overt privatisation. I understand that many people who are very interested in being part of a public-private partnership are already queueing up outside his door.

Health Action Zones
30 pm
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): Two weeks ago, I came to the House to announce that the extra £500 million earmarked for the national health service in the Chancellor's Budget would be devoted to reducing hospital in-patient waiting lists. That was part of our modernisation programme for the health service, which was set out in our recent White Paper "The New NHS". That programme will be necessary if patients and taxpayers are to get the full benefit of the extra resources we are providing, and if the million dedicated staff are to be able to use their talents to the full.
Our Green Paper on public health spelled out the action that the new Government intend to take to prevent people from falling ill in the first place, and to narrow the health gap between rich and poor./lb/>
Today I come to the House to announce the 11 areas in England that will become health action zones, where special arrangements will be made to benefit local people by both modernising the local health services and taking concerted action to tackle the root causes of ill health.
Health action zones will involve local partnerships between the health service, local councils and voluntary groups and local businesses. Their job will be to make measurable improvements in the health of local people and in the quality of treatment and care. They will break down existing barriers that are holding back local partnerships, which everybody recognises are crucial to tackling intractable health problems in many of the worst-off parts of the country.
Applications to become a health action zone were received from 41 health authorities covering widely differing areas: inner cities, coalfield communities, struggling rural areas and places where wealth and poverty live cheek by jowl. I shall now announce the 11 areas chosen for the first wave.
The South Yorkshire coalfield communities of Barnsley, Doncaster and Rotherham with a population of 770,000, want in particular to tackle the problem of young people growing up in communities ravaged by pit closures and the chronic ill health of many older people. Bradford, with a population of 470,000, has already shown a willingness to work in partnership to tackle deep-seated causes of ill health.
The east end of London, covering the boroughs of Hackney, Newham and Tower Hamlets, with a population of 580,000, has the greatest concentration of poverty and poor health in the whole country. Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham, with a population of 730,000, rank second only to the east end on the scale of need, and have the highest rate of under-age pregnancies in the country. Luton has a population of 180,000, and the unitary council and the health service have shown a remarkable commitment to working together.
Manchester, Salford and Trafford, with a population of 880,000, have shown an exemplary willingness to abandon old rivalries and instead to get together to promote the health and well-being of local people. North Cumbria, with a population of 320,000, is a predominantly rural area with acute deprivation on the coast of west Cumbria, whose needs were ignored by the previous Government.
1034
Northumberland, with a population of 310,000, is another predominantly rural area. It also contains pockets of severe deprivation, where both the health of the local people and the environment are scarred by the legacy of industrial decline. Plymouth, with a population of 260,000, contains some of the most deprived neighbourhoods in Britain, and has often been ignored in the past because of its location in the west country.
Sandwell, with a population of 300,000, has an excellent record of collaborative regeneration, but faces major public health challenges. Tyne and Wear, with a population of 1,100,000, contains many seriously deprived areas, and the health service and local councils are committed to a common strategy to improve the health of the whole conurbation.
The areas chosen cover a total population of almost 6 million, and include many of the most deprived parts of the country. Every health service region is represented. The health action zones cover a wide range of circumstances, as the people living in them face a wide variety of problems. The hospitals, clinics and GP premises in the zones range from the very best to the very worst. All the zones need special help; all have demonstrated a willingness and capacity to change and modernize—to help themselves. The zones will make real changes in people's experience of health services, and will begin to make real progress in tackling inequalities.
Let me give just one example of the conditions that should receive special attention in a health action zone: diabetes. Diabetes is the principal cause of blindness, and a major cause of coronary heart disease and amputations. Many of those drastic consequences of diabetes could be avoided by early diagnosis, advice, help and treatment. In health action zones, bureaucratic obstacles to early and continuing top-quality attention and treatment for diabetes will be removed, so that primary, community and social services join hospital specialists to provide a continuous range of services. That is just one example of the changes that health action zones can bring about.
People will begin to experience real differences in health action zones. Let me give an example of local priorities from each of the zones that have been chosen. I mentioned diabetes. In Bradford, a new community-based diabetes service is being set up—a partnership between the health authority, general practice and community and acute trusts to deliver integrated preventive, specialist and primary care to a very needy population. That is an instance of the different parts of the NHS working together, rather than in competition.
In the South Yorkshire coalfield communities, a heart health programme will be implemented, and rehabilitation services will be redeveloped to better support the casualties of the coal and steel industries. In the east end of London—in recognition of the fact that everyone is healthier if they have a job—the health action zone will target improving job opportunities for disadvantaged young people, particularly those from ethnic minorities. It will work in partnership with the local authorities, new deal agencies, local employers—including health trusts—and voluntary groups.
In Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham, the zone will develop an integrated approach to improving child health and supporting families, including programmes to improve parenting skills and reduce under-age pregnancies, and home start schemes to support families

1035
with vulnerable children. In Luton, the health needs of Asian women will be particularly addressed. There will be a focus on increasing the uptake of cervical screening, the development of a community-based coloscopy service with a female consultant, and a partnership between the NHS and the Asian community to address child development problems.
Manchester, Salford and Trafford will take an integrated approach to mental health, with programmes to provide employment and training opportunities for people with serious mental problems, and accompanying programmes to improve mental health services. North Cumbria will go ahead with an anti-poverty strategy and will work with local transport services to improve access to health services in rural areas.
Northumberland will develop a network of healthy living centres, ranging in scope from one based on a large community hospital and health facility, to making use of new technology—virtual centres for the most isolated rural areas. Plymouth will develop new approaches to improving dental health, particularly in children. In Sandwell, the health action zone will build on valuable work that has been carried out in your constituency, Madam Speaker, action on community health in Tipton and the Neptune health park, and will be used to develop community-focused health services throughout the zone.
In Tyne and Wear, there will be a new partnership approach to improving the health of elderly people, with a new system for assessing high risk, improved access to public transport, improved special housing, and a programme to improve home insulation and reduce hypothermia.
Now that the health action zones have been chosen, they must get on with the job, and much remains to be done. With the help of the NHS executive, each of the chosen areas will have to prepare detailed plans to implement what they have proposed. We shall be monitoring closely to check that their actions are having a real impact on health. They must ensure that they work in consultation with front-line staff, patients, carers and users.
I expect health action zones to develop ways of involving patients and the public in making decisions about local priorities. Each will be expected to produce by October a practical programme for measurable change.
Some £5.3 million will be made available in the coming year to promote joint working in each locality. A further £30 million will be made available in the following year to finance direct improvements in local health and health care. Further additional resources will also be available from the new opportunities fund to provide healthy living centres. We shall also look to give priority to the zones in terms of further development funds and initiatives, including giving them greater freedom and flexibility to improve health and social services for their people.
To improve local health, the health action zones will promote local partnerships to tackle pollution, homelessness, unemployment and poverty. To improve local health services, they will develop primary and community services, improve premises, promote the use of telemedicine, modernise hospital services and develop a health service that is moulded to the needs of local people.
1036
To carry out both those tasks, the health action zones will have to tackle all the bureaucratic impediments that presently stand in the way. When they do that, it will save money and time, and that will let doctors, nurses and other staff get on with their real job of looking after patients instead of having to tend to the needs of the bureaucratic machine that we have inherited. That is a long-term challenge, and that is why this is a long-term commitment. It is seven years for each zone.
I realise that there will be great disappointment in the areas that have not been chosen, but this is just the first wave. A further group of 10 or a dozen areas will become health action zones next year. Once again, they will be chosen on the basis of need, and of being able to demonstrate a willingness and capacity to put together an effective local partnership.
I urge everybody concerned to continue to develop local partnerships. We know from the number of applications that that is what people throughout the country want to do, and that is further proof that what we are doing goes with the grain. I remind everyone that partnership can be put into practice without having to wait for health action zone status. Early partnerships will bring practical benefits for the health of local people, as well as improving the chances of success in the next round of applications.
The cornerstone of our public health strategy is our commitment to driving up the standards of health among the poorest at a faster rate than for the general population. We also want to modernise the NHS to meet the needs of patients and carers, and to give the dedicated staff of the health service the resources and opportunities to bring about the improvements in quality of treatment and care that they are striving to achieve.
This is a massive double challenge. No Government have previously dared to set themselves such a challenge. It means partnership in action, not partnership on paper. To meet the challenge will require targeted effort and targeted resources. Health action zones will deliver both.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: First, may I apologise for the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) is not making this response, and for the fact that I will have to go before the exchanges are over, for the reason that I have already given in correspondence to you, Madam Speaker, and to the Secretary of State?
The theme running through the White Paper is clearly that, if one can improve co-ordination between the various services, that must help inequalities in health. I say at the outset that that is a perfectly laudable aspiration, and I commend the Secretary of State for it. I am pleased also that the health action zones that have already been announced include rural areas. I cannot think for one moment why I ever doubted that they would, but I commend him for it.
However, whether or not the Secretary of State will succeed in his aspirations will depend not so much on the rhetoric of today's statement as on his response to some of the detailed questions that I imagine he is going to be asked. He has said that there will be 11 health action zones now and some 10 to 12 more next year. How far does he see the process of health action zones going? Ultimately, how many zones will be in place throughout the country?

1037
Is there not the difficulty that, if the ultimate aim is that there should be a health action zone everywhere, the Secretary of State will be faced with a conflict of priorities in trying to work out which area is going to have more priority than another? In short, I ask him effectively to draw the dividing lines between what will count for inequality and what will not, because he knows as well as I do that, throughout the country, it would be possible to make a case even for areas of apparent affluence where there are inequalities that need to be addressed.
On finance, the Secretary of State said that £5.3 million would be made available in the coming year. He went on to say that £30 million extra will be made available in the following year. Is that new money or old? If it is new money, he is going to have to tell us why he thinks that those funds should be applied in this way and not in other, proven ways within the national health service to improve matters. If he is talking about new money, he is going to have to satisfy the House, and ultimately the public at large, that those relatively substantial sums should not be applied directly into reducing waiting lists.
Alternatively—it is not entirely obvious from what the Secretary of State has said—is it in fact old money? Is the money already there in the system? Some people will say that, if it is simply old money, this is very much a question of the emperor having no clothes. We hear enough strictures from the right hon. Gentleman, usually blamed on us, but that cannot last for ever—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh no?"] They know how to take the bait. Wait and see what the response will be in the 13th month.
We hear enough strictures from the Secretary of State about why more resources are not available, so, if this is old money, where is the money being taken from? What areas will be rifled to produce that money? What areas will find that they have fewer resources to make up for the extra resources that are being applied in this way?
The Secretary of State talked eloquently about bureaucracy. I should like to know what increases in bureaucracy he is expecting. What new structures—not in theory, but in practice—is he expecting? Are we going to have a co-ordinator general? Are we going to have a team of outreach workers who will help to monitor the performance of the co-ordinator general?
In short, the Secretary of State seems to be doing two contradictory things, although doubtless with the best intentions. He talked about tackling
"all the bureaucratic impediments that presently stand in the way."
Elsewhere, he talked movingly of
"the needs of the bureaucratic machine".
Judging from his statements today, it is a recipe not so much for cutting bureaucracy as for increasing it.
Both today and since 1 May, the right hon. Gentleman has made great play of the fact that the way in which to deliver extra resources to the health service was to cut bureaucracy. How does it come about that one cuts bureaucracy and tackles the bureaucratic machine, while creating a new bureaucracy to do so?
The Secretary of State believes—it runs clearly throughout the statement as it did through the press release that announced the initiative some months ago—that health action zones will be able to address those inequalities in health that matter so much to him and to hon. Members on both sides of the House. However, his statement does not make it clear how he will measure the
1038
success of that policy. Indeed, it could not make that clear because, in his Green Paper, the right hon. Gentleman has reduced from 27 to four the criteria by which one judges whether the health of the nation has been improved.
I could offer my thoughts on that, but, knowing the cynicism that sometimes permeates the Labour Benches, I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that he does not have to take my word for the fact that the reduction of those targets will make it impossible for him to know whether his health action zones are successful. He has only to consider the remarks of Karen Caines of the Institute of Health Service Management. When talking about the effect that reducing the targets would have on inequalities in health care, she said:
"on this most crucial issue of health and equality they"—
the Government—
"have bottled out. Without measurable targets, even over a long-term scale, there will be less pressure for change and less scope to hold them to account."
I cannot say whether that lady is a right-wing nutter, but I have never yet heard that term applied to a leader writer in The Guardian. Considering whether health action zones and the like would succeed, that leader writer said:
"The Government is wrong to shrink the number of targets from 27 to four … Most serious of all is the absence of targets for reducing health inequalities. Anti-poverty campaigners must insist on their inclusion. There must be a specific commitment to close the gap."
That is what The Guardian thought about the Secretary of State's approach to these matters, and the right hon. Gentleman needs to address that.
The Secretary of State has to say what he regards as the criteria of success. Aspirations do not cure anything. The right hon. Gentleman is engaged on a noble crusade to improve the health of those who are most disadvantaged in our country, but he has not yet told the House—it does not appear in the statement—what criteria he will use to decide whether that has been achieved.
We are dealing today with part of the same process that has permeated Government health policy since they took office, which is that they have not produced a radical agenda for improving the health of the nation. They have produced a blizzard of acronyms and snappy-sounding titles. Today we have heard about health action zones. We can add that to the Soviet-sounding NICE and Chimp, which can also be added to local community groups and primary care groups, as well as to the healthy living centres referred to so movingly today by the Secretary of State.
Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us something more about that, or will he rely instead on the quotation from the Minister for Public Health, his hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Ms Jowell)? In a memorable but infelicitous way, she talked about healthy living centres and said that they will be "Lycra-free zones". She said that they will be "exercise on prescription". I must ask the right hon. Gentleman how behaviour such as that, together with such nanny statism at its absolute worse, can take forward this agenda.
The statement is laudable enough in its aspirations, but it is woefully short on detail and on the criteria that must be used to see whether it is ultimately a success. Today, the Secretary of State must begin to address those questions. He must show that he is capable of

1039
transforming an ill-thought-out and ill-judged press release issued months ago into a coherent intellectual statement about how the health of the nation can be improved. So far, the Secretary of State's record in office has shown that he is completely incapable of doing so. Perhaps today, for once, he will prove that we are wrong.
Mr. Dobson: Criticism from Karen Caines—she and her husband were the principal architects of the lunatic system for organising the national health service that we inherited from the Tories—is music to my ears. Although it may sound strange coming from a Labour Cabinet member, the same applies to The Guardian leading articles.
I would take up too much time if I attempted to reply to all the points—some of which were conflicting—made by the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls). I welcome his welcome for our emphasis on co-ordination, which has certainly been lacking in the past. He accused us of making proposals for improving the health of the worst-off parts of the United Kingdom, and of abandoning proven ways of dealing with health inequalities. However, there are no proven ways of dealing with health inequalities in the UK. If there were, the Tories must have ignored them, because health inequalities grew—the health of poorer people fell even further behind the health of wealthy people—while the previous Government were in office.
We are determined to tackle the ill health that results from poverty where poverty occurs. That objective has very little to do with national targets, but everything to do with local targets. People are suffering from pneumoconiosis in Barnsley, Doncaster and Rotherham; people are not suffering from pneumoconiosis in east Surrey. Setting a national target for dealing with such conditions would therefore be a spurious approach. We are saying that, in those areas, effort will be targeted and bureaucracy broken down, as local people wish.
If the hon. Member for Teignbridge—who made a gallant effort to substitute for, and did much better than, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples)—thinks that our proposals are not popular, he will have to explain why 41 health authorities applied for health action zone status. Sadly, 30 of them will be disappointed.
Mr. Jim Cousins: I congratulate my right hon. Friend—as only one hairy man can do to another—[Laughter.]
Mr. Peter Snape: Better move off that one, Jim.
Mr. Cousins: Yes; move off it, but hang on to it.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement, which will be greatly and warmly welcomed in Tyne and Wear, the largest of the health action zones. He will know that action will come not a moment too soon in Tyne and Wear, where—against the trend of the past 150 years—death rates are rising among younger men, who should be in the prime of their lives as earners, fathers and sportsmen, and among older women, who should be looking forward to many more happy and active years.
1040
I ask my right hon. Friend to consider that very difficult situation and accept that it requires urgent action—to ensure that the promises of partnership stated in the document submitted by Tyne and Wear are truly met; that specialists are winkled out of civic centres and hospitals and put to work with at-risk groups in communities; and that, together, we consider people's total well-being, mental and physical, in ensuring that the objectives are delivered.
Mr. Dobson: I thank my hon. Friend—like myself, a fully paid-up member of the hirsute tendency—for his welcome. I acknowledge the parlous state of health among many of the worst-off people in Tyne and Wear—which is why Tyne and Wear has been chosen as a health action zone. The fact—which, until recently, was denied by Conservative Members—is that unemployment is one of the principal causes of ill health. In younger people, unemployment leads to suicide and accidents; despair and hopelessness; and drug use, which itself leads to illness and early death. If a middle-aged man loses his job, his chance of dying in the next five years is doubled.
We therefore cannot tackle health problems by using health measures alone. We have to create jobs, build houses and get wages up. We have to tackle poverty, and pollution.
As for getting the specialists and consultants out doing the work, my experience of health service consultants, limited as it is, is that most want nothing more than an untrammelled opportunity to improve the health of people who are poorly. That is why they went into the profession. Many have been inhibited by bureaucracy and a lack of resources, which is why we are trying to tackle both.
Mr. Simon Hughes: My colleagues and I warmly welcome the Secretary of State's statement. We congratulate him on following up the Green Paper of a few days ago, which was a statement of principle, with a statement which delivers some resources, targeted specifically to many of the worst-off areas. That is right even though, by the Secretary of State's admission, the first step is fairly modest.
I have three simple questions. First, given that 41 areas applied and only 11 were chosen, on what criteria was the choice made? Secondly, although the Secretary of State is of course right to say that each area has a different priority, does he agree that the ideal outcome of the scheme should be that, as far as health action zones go, everyone should have one?
Finally, given that it was implied in the statement, if not explicitly expressed, that the Berlin wall between health, social and other services needs to be broken down, has the right hon. Gentleman yet arrived at the view shared by my colleagues and me that the sooner we join health and social services commissioning, the better?
Mr. Dobson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that welcome, which I suppose was to be expected as his constituency is in one of the chosen zones. I have to say that the zones were chosen on the basis of my estimation of the need in particular areas and on my estimation, with the advice of my ministerial colleagues and some officials, of the ability and capacity of the relevant people in a particular area to deliver what they said they could

1041
deliver. I am not pretending that it was a wholly objective activity. Unlike the previous Government, I will not shelter behind officials. In the end, the decisions were taken by me, and I take responsibility for them.
These are new ideas that we are putting into practice. We want to learn as we go along. It is what works that counts, and it may be that many of the ideas developed in health action zones are eventually incorporated into health improvement programmes, which every health authority will be expected to deliver.
Yes, we are dedicated to bringing down the Berlin wall between the national health service and social services. The people working in both services did a brilliant job last winter in working together and making use of the extra £300 million that we found, but no, we do not think that the services should be managed by one and the same organisation.
Mr. Kevin Barron: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. The need in the South Yorkshire coalfield is apparent to most people who have seen the devastation that has taken place over the past 15 years. The health action zone is most welcome, and we will be endeavouring to ensure that it works out for the people of South Yorkshire. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it will build on the partnerships that are already working in some parts of all three boroughs? I am thinking of the health and benefits bus which has been operating in Rotherham for many years and which has won national awards.
What discussions is my right hon. Friend having with other Government Departments about the action that they can take to assist in health action zones?
Mr. Dobson: I thank my hon. Friend for his welcome. The places chosen are ones where the relevant people were already demonstrating the capacity to work together on behalf of local people. We need to build on those partnerships and strengthen them, and I hope that we will be able to do that.
Of course, other Government Departments are also targeting their efforts. Many of the areas on which the Department for Education and Employment and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, for example, are targeting their efforts are the very places that have been chosen for health action zones or are broadly similar. That is because the need in those areas spreads across health, education, employment, housing and the environment. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will, in the fulness of time, be announcing the measures that we will be taking better to co-ordinate the various initiatives.
Mr. Graham Brady: I welcome steps to improve health in Manchester and Salford, provided that they are not to the detriment of people in Trafford. Can the Secretary of State guarantee that the health action zone will not be used as a vehicle to transfer funding from Trafford to Salford or Manchester, and will he further guarantee that there will be no reduction in beds at Trafford general hospital or Altrincham general hospital?
Mr. Dobson: Both Trafford council and those responsible for the provision of health services in Trafford
1042
were enthusiastic members of the group that put together the bid for health action zone status for Manchester, Salford and Trafford. It is a great step forward for that part of Greater Manchester that they are working together, instead of the fractious, damaging and wasteful relationships that prevailed in the past.
As the elected representatives and those working for the health service in Trafford are enthusiastic supporters of the proposition, I assume that it will not involve the transfers that the hon. Gentleman fears. We have to make sure that the various services provided in those two cities and a borough help one another and work together in partnership. Perhaps Manchester can provide some services that are not available in Trafford or Salford, or vice versa.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: On behalf of my constituents and the people of north Cumbria, may I welcome my right hon. Friend's decision? I see it as a victory for all those who, ever since the Black report in the early 1980s, have argued right through that the only way to solve problems of deprivation in health care is to have an anti-poverty strategy directed towards those objectives. My right hon. Friend is the first Secretary of State for Health to deliver on precisely that agenda.
Mr. Dobson: I thank my hon. and good Friend for his kind words. I did not really need to read the Black report to understand what it was about, and the terrible wrong and injustice represented by the differing life chances between children born in Kentish Town or Cleator Moor compared with those living in Surrey or the most prosperous parts of Hampshire.
I wish people in those prosperous areas well, but I want children in every part of the country to have the same chance of a decent life expectation, a job, a healthy life, a successful marriage producing healthy children and breaking out of the terrible cycle of deprivation that has dragged down the lives of millions of people whom Labour Members have tried to represent. In my limited and humble way, so long as I stand at this Dispatch Box, I will remain committed to that, and my colleagues are behind me.
Mr. Peter Atkinson: I welcome today's announcement, particularly that a large, sparsely populated rural area has been included in the Northumberland health action zone. It provides an opportunity to congratulate the staff of the Northumberland health authority, who have produced an imaginative scheme using new technology to help those who live many miles away from local hospitals. The Secretary of State could do one further thing for my constituents in Hexham: he could give the go-ahead for a new district general hospital, which was promised by the previous Government but delayed by the present one.
Mr. Dobson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for paying tribute to the Northumberland health authority and others associated with the bid, and their intention to demonstrate that new technology does not represent a threat, but, properly deployed, can result in massive improvements in health care, particularly for those in isolated rural communities. In respect of the new hospital at Hexham, I do not make promises at the Dispatch Box

1043
that I cannot guarantee to deliver. I hope that I will not be accused of breaking a promise that was made not by me, but by the hon. Member's hon. Friends.
Mr. Snape: Will my right hon. Friend accept my thanks and congratulations on behalf of my constituents in the borough of Sandwell for his welcome announcement? Widespread concern has been expressed locally about the future of the health service in the borough, particularly the accident and emergency services in West Bromwich and surrounding areas. His announcement will go a long way to allaying those concerns.
Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the officers and members of the local health authority and health trust on the way in which they put together their successful bid? Will he also accept the congratulations of my hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar) and the right hon. Member for West Bromwich, West (Miss Boothroyd), whose duties prevent them from expressing their thanks publicly?
Mr. Dobson: I could do nothing else, for fear of my life. I join my hon. Friend in congratulating those who put together Sandwell's fine application. It reflected the needs of the area and showed the effort and commitment of the local authority, the health authority and the trust. It is a great credit to them all.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The Secretary of State has made an exciting statement, but I am sure that he agrees that the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. I hope that all the areas that have been granted health action zone status take up the opportunity.
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that even prosperous areas with low levels of unemployment, such as Macclesfield, have small pockets of extreme poverty and deprivation? He may be interested that the village of Poynton in the north of my constituency used to boast a number of coal mines, including the Nelson pit and the Anson pit. Particularly in the town of Macclesfield, there are some small pockets of extreme deprivation. Will there be an opportunity in future tranches for an area such as south Cheshire to gain health action zone status?
Mr. Dobson: I thank the hon. and generous Gentleman for his welcome for our proposals. He rightly says that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. I shall not claim credit until the proposals have worked. There are small pockets of deprivation in every part of the country. Their problems cannot be addressed fully by health action zone status. We are trying to ensure that the primary care system makes a positive contribution to the lives of people on small, rundown estates. Even in relatively prosperous villages, there are often people who are badly housed, badly paid, badly off and not very well.
Ms Rosie Winterton: May I add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend on designating the South Yorkshire coalfields as a health action zone? Will he join me in paying tribute to the hard work of the local authorities and the health authorities in forming the new partnership, which will tackle not only the effects of
1044
industrial diseases, but the worrying issue of the number of under-age pregnancies? The area has one of the highest levels of under-age pregnancy in the country.
Mr. Dobson: The performance of officials and the elected and appointed members of health authorities and trusts in Barnsley, Doncaster and Rotherham was exemplary in putting together their successful bid. God knows, few parts of the country have been as ill served in the past two decades by central Government as the South Yorkshire coalfields. We owe it to people there to provide services in an attempt to make up for all the awful things that have happened over the past few years, and to bring back the prosperity that they used to enjoy. We should aim to go beyond that, and raise standards of living and health higher than they were even when the pits were working.
Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: I, too, welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and thank him on behalf of the people of Bradford for his kind words about Bradford's successful bid. Will not two key elements make health action zones successful: true partnership between local players and ownership in developing health platforms? I am sure that this will be superb news for all our districts.
Mr. Dobson: My hon. Friend missed out one person; in bringing people together to work positively for the health of the people of Bradford, nobody has played a bigger role than my hon. Friend himself. I congratulate him on that. It just shows what we can achieve when everybody is committed to working together to look after the interests of their town, village or great city, rather than working against one another, when things fall apart.
Mr. Nick Gibb: How will setting up 11 health action zones help people in West Sussex health authority, which is facing a very serious financial crisis that is threatening both community hospitals in my constituency? Twelve beds are to be closed at Littlehampton hospital tomorrow and 12 beds in the accident and emergency unit are under threat at Bognor Regis War Memorial hospital. How will the Secretary of State's announcement help to save those beds?
Mr. Dobson: It will not; there is no point in pretending that it will. The area is not a health action zone, so the measures will not help. I hope that the additional funding that we have provided for the health service—the £1.2 billion announced in the Budget, the £300 million found for the winter and the extra £500 million to deal with waiting lists for the coming year—will make some contribution. I do not know offhand the details of the finances of West Sussex health authority, but I could probably wager a tenner that it inherited some deficits from the previous Government.
Ms Margaret Moran: Does my right hon. Friend accept my warmest congratulations on his great wisdom in selecting Luton as one of the health action zones? Is he aware that one of the key issues that the health action zone will need to tackle is the tragedy of high child mortality, which in Luton is 14 per cent. higher than the national average? Does he recognise that

1045
that is but one example of health inequality, which deepened in Luton over the past 18 years and should be to the eternal shame of Conservative Members?
Mr. Dobson: I thank my hon. Friend for her kind words. I have been accused two weeks running of being wise, which may be dangerous: I may be praised in a leading article in The Guardian if I am not careful. Child mortality is probably the worst manifestation of inequality in health. It is a disgrace to those of us who have been fortunate enough to experience the pleasure and thrill of a healthy child coming into this world and growing up that society denies such opportunity to so many.
Mr. Andrew Lansley: Representing the healthiest constituency in England, I would be churlish to complain about initiatives intended to reduce health inequality. None the less, the Secretary of State should recognise that he talks of £5.3 million for a population of nearly 6 million, which is less than £1 per head, yet authorities often spend about £1,000 per head on health. Does he agree that every health authority should pursue initiatives such as those he is describing? Increasingly, health authorities should not have to jump through bureaucratic hoops to satisfy the Secretary of State. They should be given adequate funding and local freedom and responsibility to undertake initiatives that they judge are in their best interests, rather than undertaking simply what the Secretary of State judges ought to be in their interest.
Mr. Dobson: I certainly accept the hon. Gentleman's sensible point that the object must be to get every health authority to pursue such policies, targeted on improving health and taking down bureaucratic barriers that are preventing across-the-board efforts to improve health. That is our intention.
When we change the laws, as we will in the next Session, we shall place a duty on every health authority to draw up a health improvement programme for their area, in consultation with local people, reflecting local priorities. That is why we are not laying down national targets, as the previous Government did; we are allowing authorities to follow the four major targets that we have laid down and to identify how they will contribute towards them. They could also identify the particular problems that beset the people of their areas and come up with proposals for dealing with them.
At least on this occasion, we are broadly in agreement. I do not pretend that the £5.3 million that will be available to the health action zones in the forthcoming year will make a major contribution to health improvements this year; it is intended to facilitate some of the changes. However, £30 million extra will be available to health action zones in the following year and, because the Government will give them high priority for health spending, they will receive all sorts of other additional funds to help them deal with the problems facing their people, and to enable the dedicated staff in those parts of the country to do the job that they want to do.
Ms Joan Walley: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, but may I also refer him to my Adjournment debate on health inequalities in north Staffordshire? If he could offer the people of north Staffordshire some hope in connection with the
1046
consideration of subsequent health action zones, we would feel that we stood to benefit from his statement today, as we are so acutely aware of the huge health inequalities in our area. We are already working in partnership, and we would really appreciate an opportunity to discuss with my right hon. Friend how we could ensure that a subsequent bid would be successful.
Mr. Dobson: I understand the disappointment that will be felt in north Staffordshire—especially by my hon. Friend, who has put enormous effort into trying to get everybody there working together to improve health in the area, and into trying to persuade me to give north Staffordshire health action zone status. It is no criticism of my hon. Friend that I could not afford to give that status.
The problem is that I could choose only 10 or 11 areas, and in terms of a combination of need with a demonstrated capacity to start addressing the problem, north Staffordshire was not in the first 11. However, it was not far down the list, and I repeat what I said in my statement—that the more the people in each locality can work together, the more they will bring immediate benefits for the health of the local population. They will also be able to produce a more convincing case for health action zone status by demonstrating that they are already doing what we want them to do.
Mr. Owen Paterson: The aims are laudable, but we have heard little detail about how health action zones will work. Will the Minister please explain?
Mr. Dobson: I am sorry if my halting explanation in the statement seems to have passed the hon. Gentleman by. The idea is that in the health action zones all the organisations concerned—the health authorities, the trust or trusts, local authorities, voluntary organisations, community organisations, businesses and the various professions—should get together and start working together to draw up plans for targeted improvements in health and sensible changes in the way in which things are done—
Mr. Ian Bruce: They could have an aerobics class together.
Mr. Dobson: I do not know whether it would be anything to do with an aerobics class in South Dorset, but it would have needed only 77 people in the constituency—an aerobics class, perhaps—to vote the other way at the election for the hon. Gentleman to have been replaced by a Labour Member. Until now, we have managed to have a perfectly sensible discussion with people making sensible points. Such empty-headed comments as the hon. Gentleman' s do no good, but they do show why, in as Tory an area as South Dorset, we got within 77 votes of winning the seat.
Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe: May I convey my congratulations to my right hon. Friend, even though the Wigan, Leigh and Bolton health authority has not been included? There is some disappointment about that, but we have put down a marker for mark II of the grants. Wigan is a classic example of an area of mining obsolescence, and the same is true of textiles in the Bolton area. We have the worst dental health records in Wigan—it is top of the pops in that respect—and the incidence of

1047
pneumoconiosis, emphysema, bronchitis and silicosis in our textile towns is very high. In setting any future criteria for health action zones, will my right hon. Friend ensure that favourable consideration is given to that part of the world?
Mr. Dobson: My hon. Friend has long been a powerful advocate of the interests of the people of Wigan and Bolton, and he continues today. I promise to look carefully at next year's applications, but I emphasise that anything he can do to get people to work together now will immediately benefit people, and will further the area's chances of being chosen next time.
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his team on a very, very good statement. I look forward to improved health for the men and women who worked in shipbuilding, the mines and the steelworks in the north-east—particularly in my constituency of Blyth Valley—because the legacy of poor health is starting to show through on the older people who worked in those industries. I hope that the proposals will help young people also—particularly in terms of the drugs scene, which is very big in the area and has been a bit of a mess for a long time. The proposals must be a giant step for the Labour Government.
Mr. Dobson: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. It is a sobering thought that the heavy industries in his part of the world have closed down, but have not been replaced to anything like the extent necessary to provide employment and reasonable prospects, particularly for a lot of young men in the area. At the same time, the suppliers of drugs have moved in to fill the vacuum. The efforts being made by my right hon. Friend the President of the Council and the Government's drugs co-ordinator will help, and should be part of the consideration for future health action zones.
Mr. Stephen Hesford: I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his team on what is essentially a public health approach to the matter. Does he accept that more than 1 million people on Merseyside will be disappointed that the area has not received health action zone status? My health authority, Wirral health authority, was one of the main players in the bid. Does he accept that progress was made across Merseyside to put the bid together?
1048
I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend courageously told the House that he took a personal approach in difficult circumstances in choosing the health action zones, as there were going to be only 10 or 11, and he will perhaps confirm that the Merseyside bid was very close. Can he assist areas such as Merseyside, which were disappointed on this occasion, by giving considered directions as to where they fell short?
Mr. Dobson: I can confirm that it is our intention—some of this may have been done already—that officials in my Department will be advising all the applicants on the strengths and weaknesses of their applications. I hope that that will lead to improvements. I tried my best not necessarily to make my judgment on the presentation of the individual application but on the substance behind it. We all know in various spheres that sometimes a flash application is not likely to be followed by flash performance.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. We must move on.

Questions to Ministers
4.29 pm
Mr. Norman Baker: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I refer to a matter that arises from a written answer that was given to me, which appears in column 378 of yesterday's Hansard. It is a reply from the Prime Minister to a simple question, which was:
"who initiated the recent telephone conversation between him and the Italian Premier, Romano Prodi"—[Official Report, 30 March 1998; Vol. 309, c. 378.]
concerning Mr. Rupert Murdoch? The Prime Minister refuses to answer that question in clear terms in his response.
The point of order for you, Madam Speaker, is whether it is in order for the Prime Minister to refuse to give a straight answer to my question when his spin doctors outside the House are allegedly giving straight answers to the question. Why is it not possible for an answer to be given that appears on the record in the House? Is it because the answer would be different from that given outside?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is well aware that the Speaker is not responsible for answers given by Ministers.

Millennium Conformity
4.30 pm
Mr. David Atkinson: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision with respect to the capability of computer systems and other goods and related services to deal with calendar dates after 31st December 1999; to require certain invoices to be paid promptly; to make 31st December 1999 a bank holiday; and for connected purposes.
The sinking of the Titanic was a disaster that was not foreseen. Indeed, it is not often that we can see a crisis coming with sufficient time to avoid it. This, however, has been the case with the crisis that now faces the United Kingdom and every country in which the daily lives of its citizens rely on the efficient functioning of computer systems. This crisis will arise in 640 days' time because most computer systems will not recognise the year 2000. Unless they have been retimed, reprogrammed or replaced, they will quite simply no longer perform as they have been programmed to do.
As the Prime Minister told a conference of business men yesterday, the resultant chaos and confusion will affect the work of Governments, the conduct of business and the welfare of entire societies, and it will be global. No advanced country can isolate itself unless effective action has been taken. Nevertheless, there is much that individual countries can and should be doing to protect their own public services and the private sector. It is this that the Bill is all about.
Until 27 November 1997, when the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster made his statement about the millennium compliancy of computer systems in central Government, I had been the only Member to have raised the issue. The first time was in an oral question to the then Prime Minister in December 1995. I raised the issue again in an Adjournment debate in June 1996. Later that year the House allowed me to introduce my first Bill on the matter—the Companies (Millennium Computer Compliance) Bill—which had reached consideration on Report by the time of the general election last year. I reintroduced it to the present Parliament last July. It remains on the Order Paper for Second Reading, but I must reluctantly accept that time is running out for it to be effective.
Of course I regret that this Government, like the previous one, are failing to appreciate the simple solution to the unique issue which my Bill proposes, requiring, as it does, company directors to conduct an assessment of the ability of their computer systems to recognise the year 2000 and to report on the outcome of that assessment to their shareholders in the annual report. Instead, as the Prime Minister confirmed yesterday, the Government are relying on voluntary persuasion for it to be recognised that there is a need to be aware of the problem, and to take the necessary action in response.
Today, in the light of the evidence, I urge the House to accept that the situation is too serious to rely on voluntary persuasion, and that there is now no alternative but to require action to be taken by law if we are to avoid problems, many of which are not yet foreseen, which undoubtedly would put many businesses and many people at risk.
What is the evidence to support the need for my proposed legislation? Unfortunately, there does not exist in this or any other country any clear measure of progress
1050
on compliance and readiness in the private sector. There is no quarterly report, such as the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has introduced relating to the situation in central Government. Nor is there any clear measure to quantify progress in the provision of public services outside central Government, such as the national health service and local government. My Bill would address that.
All that exists today are various surveys, all of which come to much the same conclusion: that less than 10 per cent. of businesses have carried out a full system audit; that less than one fifth of business managers consider the problem to be critical; and that about half the businesses in the country have taken no action at all in response to the problem.
As the Confederation of British Industry told the Select Committee on Science and Technology, which reports on this issue next week:
"There remains a disturbingly large number who have not recognised that the millennium date change may have a drastic effect on their businesses."
Cap Gemini, which is Europe's largest computer services company, told us:
"one in six UK organisations will fail to meet the deadline, and therefore 38 per cent. of GDP will be at risk."
Yet these surveys almost certainly give a false, and probably over-optimistic, picture, because many companies will be reluctant to admit to being unaware; that they have yet to take action; that they are being advised by their lawyers not to say anything for fear of possible legal action, or of giving information away to their competitors.
The truth is that we have no means of knowing the state of millennium readiness of this country. As a result, companies will be—and are being—panicked into replacing whole systems unnecessarily and at enormous cost, and both private and public sectors will put into place contingency plans, which may not be necessary, to avoid the breakdown of services that is predicted.
My Bill can avoid this nightmare scenario. It would require any company or person who manufactures, produces or sells any computer system or provides any related service to ensure that these recognise 1 January 2000 and beyond, as defined by the British Standards Institute code of millennium conformity. They will be required to indicate conformity on their goods and services, and will be breaking the law if they say that they are compliant when they are not.
The legal requirement to label will be similar to the way in which drugs are required to be labelled and dated to protect the consumer. That is why, in my view, it is essential. Companies will be required to make a declaration of conformity. Indeed, every company will be required by the appropriate Secretary of State to provide such a written declaration no later than 1 October 1999. That will enable the Government to establish, as they cannot do at present, the country's state of readiness, and to respond accordingly.
As one of the major problems concerns embedded chips—for example, those in production lines, security systems and telephone exchanges—the Bill will require companies using such systems to label them accordingly.
I emphasise just how valuable the requirement to disclose will be to force those responsible to take the action that is not being taken. The Bill will also provide

1051
for all invoices for payment earlier than 1 December 1999 to be paid and cleared no later than 10 December 1999 to ensure cash flow, just in case it becomes impossible to do so after the new century has begun.
Finally, the Bill proposes that Friday 31 December 1999 should be designated a national bank holiday to allow key staff to come in and make final checks of the readiness of compliance, and of contingency plans, in time for midnight of the millennium.
I recognise that the Bill is regulatory, in obliging businesses and the providers of public services to satisfy statutory requirements, but, as I have argued, that is now necessary. It does not matter whether most of the public sector and most of the private sector invest in millennium compliance. As Cap Gemini warned the Select Committee, if even a tiny number of key organisations, such as utilities, banks or central Government Departments, miss the deadline, the knock-on effects will cause severe economic disruption. Only the Government can take responsibility for ensuring that that does not happen.
The Bill provides the Government with the means to avert that disruption. It complements what the Prime Minister announced yesterday, by making Britain one of the world's best-prepared countries. That is why I hope that the House will give me leave to introduce the Bill today.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Atkinson, Mr. David Amess, Mr. Frank Cook, Mr. Tam Dalyell, Dr. Lynne Jones, Mr. Nigel Jones, Mr. Charles Kennedy, Mr. Robert Sheldon, Rev. Martin Smyth, Mr. Stephen Timms, Mr. John Townend and Mr. Dafydd Wigley.

MILLENNIUM CONFORMITY
Mr. David Atkinson accordingly presented a Bill to make provision with respect to the capability of computer systems and other goods and related services to deal with calendar dates after 31st December 1999; to require certain invoices to be paid promptly; to make 31st December 1999 a bank holiday; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 24 April, and to be printed [Bill 165].
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As one of the Bill's sponsors, I say yet again that, under the procedures of the House, there is an argument for ten-minute Bills being taken a bit more seriously. If the Committee stage of the first Bill of the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson), the Companies (Millennium Computer Compliance) Bill, on which I served, had been taken as seriously as then Ministers said it would be, we might not have been in quite such a pickle as we are.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I hope that all matters before the House are taken seriously at all times. I repeat the advice that I gave the hon. Gentleman on an earlier occasion, that that matter might usefully be taken up with the Leader of the House, either in her capacity as such or as Chairman of the Modernisation Committee.

Orders of the Day

  Scotland Bill
  [8TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 30 March].
  [SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

  Schedule 5

    RESERVED MATTERS
    4.40 pm
    Mr. Donald Gorrie: I beg to move amendment No. 495, in page 68, leave out lines 33 and 34.
    The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 496, in page 68, line 36, after 'crossings),', insert 'and'.
    No. 497, in page 68, line 36, leave out
    'and Part VI (speed limits)'.
    Government amendment No. 533.
    No. 480, in page 69, line 10, leave out from 'training)' to end of line 11.
    No. 208, in page 69, line 14, leave out 'Provision and'.
    No. 209, in page 69, line 18, leave out from beginning to first 'the' in line 21.
    No. 210, in page 69, leave out lines 23 and 24.
    No. 211, in page 69, line 25, leave out from 'section' to end of line 26 and insert
    '136(1) of the Railways Act 1993 (competent authority in relation to the railways financial status regulations).'.
    No. 498, in page 69, line 26, at end insert—
    'The functions of the Director of Passenger Rail Franchising in relation to rail services wholly within Scotland.
    The power to require Railtrack and the operators of franchised rail services within Scotland to report to the Parliament.'.
    Government amendments Nos. 534 to 536.
    No. 481, in page 70, line 2, leave out 'or finish or both' and insert 'and finish'.
    Government amendments Nos. 537 to 544.
    Mr. Gorrie: Amendment No. 495 relates to licensing public service vehicles, amendments Nos. 496 and 497 relate to speed limits and amendment No. 498 relates to passenger rail franchising.
    The licensing of public service vehicles under the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 and the Transport Act 1985 is a reserved item. The notes on clauses state that the licensing system is administered by the traffic commissioner for the Scottish traffic area constituted under the 1981 Act. If a Scottish traffic commissioner regulates buses in Scotland, I can see no argument for him or her not to be responsible to the Scottish Parliament. The issue concerns mainly licensing, the safety of buses and so on.
    The Government's argument for reserving the power is that such issues must be common throughout the United Kingdom. However, with respect, the Government are falling into the trap, which they sometimes accuse the

    1053
    Conservative party of falling into, of thinking that everything must be the same. The argument for a Scottish Parliament is that, where appropriate, the Scots should have the right to do things differently. If the Scottish Parliament wishes to have a different licensing system for rural buses, buses on small islands, or something of that sort, as long as it pays due heed to national and international safety standards, it should be allowed such control. For the Scottish Parliament not to have that control—the matter is already under the separate control of an official in Scotland—would be remarkably foolish.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: Has the hon. Gentleman inquired into the costs of the break-up of the United Kingdom driving licence set-up? He will correct me if I am wrong, but I hear anecdotally that to remove responsibility from Swansea would be extremely costly.
    Mr. Gorrie: The hon. Gentleman has not understood what I am getting at. If that is my fault, I apologise. I am dealing not with driver licensing but with the licensing of public service vehicles, such as buses, and the giving of safety certificates. As I said, that is already done by an official for Scotland, so no additional costs would be involved.
    Amendment No. 496 relates to speed limits. The Scottish Parliament is responsible for road safety; the notes on clauses contain a series of points about exactly what it can do. But if the Scottish Parliament felt that to have a different system of speed limits was a major item in its road safety policy, it would cause extreme friction and unpleasantness if it were told that it could not have such a system; that it could have all sorts of humps and hollows, but could not limit speeds around, for example, schools or residential areas, to 20 mph or even less.
    We accept the need for conformity in the layout of pedestrian crossings and traffic signs, because many drivers go round the United Kingdom and different signs would confuse them. However, if there was a clear sign limiting a driver's speed to 15 mph in a particular street, even the thickest driver would understand that. The Scottish Parliament should be allowed to give such powers to local authorities. Again, I see no reason for saying that the Scottish Parliament is responsible for road safety, but cannot take one of the key steps to achieve that.
    Amendment No. 498 relates to rail franchising. It covers some of the same ground as a number of amendments relating to the control of railways, in the name of the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe). We have great sympathy with those amendments and, if the Government were minded to support that line of approach, we would be happy. However, the approach that we have gone for is that the functions of the Director of Passenger Rail Franchising in relation to rail services wholly within Scotland should not be reserved, and that the Scottish Parliament should have the power to require Railtrack and the operators of franchised rail services in Scotland to report to the Scottish Parliament.
    There is a problem about United Kingdom rail services, so we are not suggesting a sort of unilateral declaration of independence for Scottish rail services, but there are many services within Scotland, and we do not see why
    1054
    the Scottish Parliament should not have much more direct control over them, through the Director of Passenger Rail Franchising, and by requiring Railtrack and the franchisee companies to report to the Scottish Parliament. To deny the Scottish Parliament a direct say in the conduct of internal Scottish railway services is an unhappy arrangement, which the Government should reconsider.
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: I rise to speak to amendments Nos. 480 and 481.
    Amendment No. 480 is a probing amendment, the effect of which would be to reserve sections 157 to 159 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to this Parliament. No political point is being made. All we want is that the Government explain the logic of this exception to the reserved power. As the Bill stands, it raises the possibility of differing payments for treatment of traffic casualties, depending whether they sustain their injuries in Scotland or in another part of the United Kingdom. What can be the rationale for opening up that possibility?
    Amendment No. 481 removes the existing reservation and therefore devolves further power to the Scottish Parliament. The Bill reserves not just shipping services that start and finish outside Scotland, but services that connect Scotland with other countries or parts of the UK. The amendment would bring those connecting services back within the competence of the Scottish Parliament.
    Yesterday, we heard some extraordinary speeches from Labour Members. Speaker after speaker was in favour of reservations and against the principle of devolution. The speeches were all the more remarkable, given the quarters from which they came—not least among those who spoke was the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe). They bore eloquent testimony to the disciplinary machine that the Labour party has become. Whenever something has been found to be controversial, embarrassing or sensitive, the Government have sought to reserve the power over it to this Parliament. We saw it yesterday, we see it now and we shall see it again later this afternoon.
    The Government undoubtedly perceive that they will have more effective control over those issues in governing their supporters in this Parliament than through the tenuous grasp they will have on the Scottish Parliament, particularly on their own supporters. What can possibly be the logic of reserving financial assistance to shipping to this Parliament? Surely it is up to the new Parliament in Scotland to decide which passenger and freight shipping routes are worthy of financial assistance, whether to establish or maintain them. There is some logic in the notes on clauses, which say that it is to prevent differing approaches, which might distort the market for shipping services. That is enough to make a cat laugh. When were the Government ever concerned about market distortions? Their whole legislative programme is riddled with market distortion. Indeed, the Bill contains an enormous market distortion consequent on the threatening differential in income tax between Scotland and the rest of the UK.
    It was not concern for the principles of the free market that led to that reservation; it was distrust. The Government will not entrust that aspect of policy to the new Parliament. That is all the more remarkable, given all the talk that we heard when the White Paper was published, attendant on the referendum, and on Second Reading, about new politics and inclusiveness. We now see that it was nothing but the grinding of air.

    1055
    Under the previous Administration, the then Secretary of State established a new ferry service between Scotland and Northern Ireland—between Ballycastle and Castleton.
    Dr. Norman A. Godman: May I correct the hon. Gentleman? The service to which he refers is between Ballycastle and Campbeltown. May I also point out that the Conservative Government refused to allow Caledonian MacBrayne to run that service, which could have damaged the new infant service beyond repair?
    Mr. Swayne: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his correction. That is what I thought I had said—I must have stumbled or mumbled. I shall deal with his substantive point in a moment.
    It is monstrous and ridiculous that such a service should be placed outside the competence of the new Scottish Parliament. The Government are implying that the new Parliament is not sufficiently responsible and mature to establish its transport priorities and provide financial assistance from the funds available to it from the Consolidated Fund.
    As the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) observed, a number of people in Scotland are unhappy about how the ferry service between Scotland and Northern Ireland was established. Amendment No. 481 provides him with an opportunity that he should seize.
    Mr. Desmond Browne: Can the hon. Gentleman explain whether he is arguing for devolution of the power to control that ferry service to the new Northern Ireland assembly or Parliament, or to the Scottish Parliament, or whether the sensible course is, as it passes between two areas, to leave it as a UK ferry service?
    Mr. Swayne: That service was set up by the Secretary of State for Scotland for the benefit of Scotland. That is the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question.
    Dr. Godman: I am exceedingly grateful to the hon. Gentleman for showing his characteristic courtesy in giving way again.
    That ferry service was set up to benefit Northern Ireland and a particular part of Scotland. May I point out that Caledonian MacBrayne suffered for 18 years the Conservative party's mismanagement at the Scottish Office? I hope that, without the hon. Gentleman's useless and irrelevant amendment, Caledonian MacBrayne will prosper vis-à-vis a Scottish Parliament.
    Mr. Swayne: The hon. Gentleman should consider carefully the fact that amendment No. 481 places within the domain of the Scottish Parliament those issues about which he is concerned. As the Bill stands, those issues are beyond the competence of the Scottish Parliament, which is most unsatisfactory.
    Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate, particularly on the provision of railway services. I shall speak to amendments Nos. 208 to 211.
    1056
    The purpose of the amendments is simple: to allow the Scottish Parliament to achieve an integrated transport strategy throughout Scotland. As hon. Members from Scotland know, that is even more important in Scotland than it is in other parts of the United Kingdom, because of the sparsity of the population and the longer distances that people have to travel. The amendments aim to achieve that by giving the Scottish Parliament powers over the provision of railway services that are similar to those that it will have over other forms of transport. That will be done by removing references to the provision of railway services from the list of reserved matters, but leaving the regulation of railway services as a reserved matter.
    According to paragraph 3.2 of the White Paper "Scotland's Parliament", the reserved powers are to be only in areas where matters can be more effectively and beneficially handled on a UK basis. It is far from clear that that criterion has been met in this case. There is no need for a reservation, as the vast majority of rail traffic—some 95 per cent.—using the Scottish rail network is internal and thus needs to be considered not on a UK basis but in a Scottish context.
    The Scottish and English networks connect at only two points, and the division of responsibilities for trunk roads between the Scottish Office and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is a suitable model for jurisdiction. There should be no significant problems in developing that model for rail if it can be used for roads. The last thing that we want for the railways is conflict, especially as we have just come through reorganisation, but the reservations in the Bill make it highly probable.
    5 pm
    The amendments would also allow the Scottish Parliament to consider private legislation relating to the building of new railway lines in Scotland. Under schedule 7, such plans would have to be considered in this House under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, which is somewhat outdated for the job as it is more than 60 years old. Private legislation procedures in England and Wales have been updated by the Transport and Works Act 1992. It would be unreasonable to force the Scottish Parliament to come to this House to use pre-war procedures because it wants a railway line to be built in Scotland. I trust that my hon. Friend the Minister will take note of my remarks and agree with me.
    The amendments to schedule 5 would remove ambiguity about local authority funding for railway services in Scotland under section 136 of the Railways Act 1993. The schedule, as drafted, requires such funding to be carried out under reserved powers, and such activities could not be integrated into the Scottish block as administered by the Scottish Parliament. That is a recipe for disaster, and I trust that my hon. Friend the Minister agrees.
    The Bill threatens any Scottish Office efforts to grant assistance to projects that would shift freight from road to rail. That anomaly would be removed by the amendments. The Minister will be aware that the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs, of which I am a member, has recently concluded a major examination of railways and the effects of privatisation of British Rail, which was performed by the last

    1057
    Tory Government. I shall not go into the details of that mistaken policy, but hon. Members will be aware of the unanimous Select Committee report on the matter.
    Our examination of the new composition of the network found that the generally unsatisfactory relationship between rail passengers and rail companies was a major problem. The amendments would allow the Scottish Parliament to remedy that by appointing the members of the Rail Users Consultative Committee for Scotland, which is mere common sense. I hope that the Minister will allow it to happen.
    The unanimous report of the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Transport Sub-Committee called for a strategic rail authority to be set up, which is further evidence of the need for the development of a unified and integrated transport policy. Anything else would be irrational, and it would be wrong to recognise the importance of the policy in the rest of the United Kingdom but to deny it in Scotland. Such a policy must be developed, especially given Scotland's many and varied needs for transport.
    If the Minister cannot accept the amendments, I hope that he will accept the aims behind them and reassure hon. Members that the Scottish Parliament will be able to develop an integrated transport policy. I hope that the amendments, which would allow that to happen, will be accepted.
    Mr. Alasdair Morgan: I welcome amendment No. 495, which was moved by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie). It would be bizarre if we could not trust the Scottish Parliament to administer matters such as public service vehicle operator licences and speed limits, which are of no interest to people outside Scotland.
    I also welcome the amendments to which the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) spoke, and hope that the Government support them. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, ScotRail is a well-contained organisation that operates almost all the railways in Scotland, with the exception of the preserved lines. Almost all its services operate within Scotland, with the exception of the Caledonian sleepers, which some hon. Members travel on occasionally. It is logical to devolve such powers to the new Scottish Parliament.
    The logic that argues for amendments Nos. 208 to 211 also argues for amendment No. 498, which would devolve rail franchising. I have some sympathy with the Conservative amendment on ferry traffic. Labour Members seemed to think it bizarre that a ferry travelling from Northern Ireland to Scotland should come under the aegis of two different authorities with control over ferry services. The most successful ferry services in the world, which sail from France to England, are in exactly the same position, although that has never impinged on their effectiveness.
    The Government amendments would, if I understand them correctly, introduce a new reservation on hovercrafts and wrecks to the Parliament of the United Kingdom, which would take reserved powers a stage too far. The Government are devolving the power dealing with the noise of hovercrafts, but the noise of wrecks does not
    1058
    come into the matter. That is unnecessarily complex, and the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish people are able to look after those matters in Scotland.
    Mr. Dalyell: As an unbeliever in the whole proposition for devolution, hon. Members may take it from me that, none the less, there was great sense in the convincing, powerful and welcome speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe). How on earth can we expect Members of the Holyrood Parliament not to concern themselves with transport matters? Within seconds of his rising to speak, it was clear that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie) would be completely dissatisfied with existing arrangements, and was truly and accurately reflecting the attitudes of every member of every party that will be represented in the Edinburgh Parliament.
    My hon. Friend the Minister, energetic man that he is, will be the first to say, "If only we had more authority to do something about it ourselves," when there is trouble over slow trains and passengers being kept waiting. If we are to have the Edinburgh Parliament, it will be wholly unreal not to give it such powers.
    The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office (Mr. Henry McLeish): I welcome the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) to the new peripatetic Front-Bench service that the Conservatives are now operating—it has some merits.
    Mr. Michael Ancram: Why is the Minister doing it all alone?
    Mr. McLeish: It is the responsibility of high office. I am doing the job for the fun of it, as you, Mr. Lord, can well imagine. How enjoyable it is to face another six and a half hours with such delightful company.
    Before speaking to the Opposition amendments, I shall speak briefly to the Government amendments. Amendment No. 533 is a drafting amendment to clarify the scope of the exception from the road transport reservation. It is consistent with the approach taken throughout schedule 5. Amendments Nos. 534 to 536 respectively add to the reservation the subject matter of the Hovercraft Act 1968, except for provisions dealing with noise pollution, section 2 of the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973 and the Dangerous Vessels Act 1985. The 1973 Act deals with the designation of protected areas around dangerous wrecks, and the 1985 Act deals with the powers of harbourmasters and the Secretary of State in relation to dangerous vessels.
    The amendments fulfil the Government's commitment to ensure that matters related to marine safety are reserved.
    Dr. Godman: Amendment No. 537 deletes the words "marine works" and inserts the word "boatslips". How does my hon. Friend define a "boatslip"? Does it refer to boatyards as well as to slipways used by fishermen in the maintenance of their craft and by small boat builders and fishing boat repairers?
    Mr. McLeish: I shall deal with that matter shortly, if my hon. Friend can wait.

    1059
    Amendment No. 538 tidies up the qualifications to the exemption from reservation as a consequence of amendments Nos. 534 to 536 by making it clear that the Scottish Parliament does not have competence on matters of marine safety when legislating on ports and harbours.
    Amendment No. 537 is a clarificatory amendment. It would remove the reference to marine works and substitute a reference to boatslips. That is because the statutory definition of "marine work" in section 57 of the Harbours Act 1964 is a harbour or boatslip used for certain purposes. As harbours form part of the exception, and to avoid confusion, we propose to add the reference to boatslips and to delete that to marine works. Amendment No. 539 is consequential on amendment No. 537.
    It is proposed that the Scottish Parliament will have legislative competence on airport planning and environmental matters, including airport byelaws and traffic matters. The Bill already makes provision for that by excepting the subject matter of section 30 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982, which deals with the provision of aerodromes and facilities at aerodromes by local authorities. Amendment No. 540 would extend the exception to cover related powers under section 31 of the 1982 Act, which covers local authorities' powers to carry on a business ancillary to the running of an aerodrome.
    Amendment No. 541 would delete from the exception from reservation the subject matter of sections 44 to 49 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982. Those sections make provision on safety at aerodromes and warnings about obstructions, and are properly part of the reserved matter of the regulation of aviation and air transport. The amendment would not affect the competence of the Scottish Parliament in respect of airport planning and environmental matters, including airport byelaws and traffic matters.
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: Does that mean that the Scottish Parliament will have responsibility for approving licensed aerodromes, but will have to seek permission, under the Civil Aviation Act 1982, from the United Kingdom Parliament's devolved authorities in respect of obstructions? The Scottish Parliament will not have complete control over those matters, and will have to refer to the United Kingdom Parliament.
    Mr. McLeish: The hon. Gentleman's analysis is correct. The main issue is that airport planning, environmental matters, air byelaws and traffic matters will be devolved responsibilities. His interpretation is correct in respect of obstructions.
    Amendment No. 542 is a technical amendment to ensure consistency between the wording of the proposed exceptions from reservation. In line with the general devolution of airport planning and environmental matters, including airport byelaws and traffic matters, amendment No. 543 would extend the competence of the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Executive to the compulsory acquisition of land by an airport operator and the disposal of compulsorily acquired land.
    Amendment No. 544 clarifies the reservation in schedule 5 about the setting of accessibility standards for public passenger transport for disabled persons. As the
    1060
    White Paper stated, technical specifications relating to the needs of disabled people in public passenger transport will be reserved to ensure uniformity across the United Kingdom.
    However, other aspects of transport for the disabled, such as the orange badge scheme and concessionary fare schemes, are devolved. It is also intended that the Scottish Parliament could establish, if it wishes, a statutory body, like the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, to operate in devolved areas of transport for disabled persons. By substituting the words "technical specifications" for the word "standards", the amendment makes the distinction between reserved and devolved matters clear, and I commend it to the Committee.
    I shall now deal with the Opposition amendments. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie) set out his reasons for tabling amendment No. 495, which deals with the licensing of operators of public service vehicles in Scotland. I should like to set out my reasons for not accepting it. The Government have made it plain that certain matters would benefit from a consistent and integrated approach across Great Britain, and operator licensing for public service vehicles falls into that category.
    It would clearly be impractical, confusing and inconvenient for operators potentially to be subject to different licensing standards in Scotland from those operating in the rest of the country. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.
    Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Would the Minister care to speculate on how many operators of public transport services in England and Scotland are likely to be confused by the amendment?
    5.15 pm
    Mr. McLeish: I am disinclined to speculate on that, because I do not have the information readily available. I hope that the consistency, coherence and common sense of our approach will be evident to all hon. Members.
    Mr. Dalyell: I interrupted the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie) to ask him the cost of his proposals. Do the Government have any easily available figures on the cost of disruption to and break-up of those technical organizations?
    Mr. McLeish: No work has been done on that point, partly because we intend to reserve those matters. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that simple explanation.
    The Government do not accept amendments Nos. 496 and 497, which seek to devolve the provisions of part VI of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 on general speed limits. A high degree of consistency between the general speed limits that apply in Scotland and those that apply in the rest of the United Kingdom is desirable in the interests of road safety and driver comprehension.
    The Government cannot accept amendment No. 480, which deals with road traffic casualties. It seeks to reserve the provisions of sections 157 to 159 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, which deal with the recovery of payments for hospital treatment of road traffic casualties. Those provisions are not an integral part of GB roads legislation, as the powers in the Act to make charges are given specifically to Health Ministers. The whole subject of

    1061
    health in Scotland is devolved to the Scottish Parliament. It would therefore be inappropriate for this area of recovery of payment for hospital treatment of road accident casualties alone to be reserved.
    Mr. Swayne: Do the provisions of the Bill as they now stand mean that, if a pedestrian were knocked down at one end of the bridge over the Tweed at Coldstream, a differential payment may be made, but it would depend on the part of the bridge where he was knocked down? Will that be beneficial or confusing to the insurance industry?
    Mr. McLeish: That is the current position. Our proposals are reasonable, because they are consistent with devolved power.
    Mr. Ancram: The Minister should answer the question for once.
    Mr. McLeish: The right hon. Gentleman is always carping from a sedentary position about not receiving answers. The trouble is that if I give Conservative Members an answer that they do not like or that they think is wrong, they say that I do not know the answer. Their attitude is scurrilous. I am a measured person, and I hope that, rather than make remarks from a sedentary position, the right hon. Gentleman will make his comments at the Dispatch Box so that everyone can hear them.
    Amendments Nos. 208 to 211 deal with rail responsibilities. I shall give our reasons for not accepting them, although I acknowledge the important sentiment that lies behind them. I shall make clear what the Government propose in the Bill and in subsequent policy statements. I hope that that will provide the reassurance that hon. Members are seeking.
    Amendment No. 208 seeks to exclude from the reservation legislative competence over the provision of railway services, and amendment No. 498 seeks to exclude from the reservation the functions of the Director of Passenger Rail Franchising in relation to rail services wholly within Scotland.
    The Government have made it plain that we do not think that the privatised railway that we inherited from the previous Administration is structured or run in a way sufficiently responsive, or accountable, to the public interest. We shall be addressing that matter in the transport White Paper, which the Deputy Prime Minister will be bringing to the House very soon, and in the legislation that will be necessary to introduce the new arrangements for rail.
    The Government remain committed to maintaining a national rail network, run in the public interest under the auspices of a new rail authority. At present, three different franchise operators run rail services in Scotland, and all three run cross-border services. If the amendment were approved, it is conceivable that the national network and services which cross the England-Scotland border could be put in jeopardy by a Scottish Parliament overturning the framework that governs the operation of railway passenger and goods services on a GB basis. That is not a sensible way of running a national railway. We regard it as essential for the overall regulatory regime to be a reserved matter. The Government are nevertheless committed to delivering a policy that gives appropriate
    1062
    oversight of Scottish passenger rail services to the Scottish Executive. We propose to do that in the following ways, through provisions in the Bill and the policies and legislation that we shall subsequently introduce.
    In regard to passenger rail services that both start and end in Scotland—virtually all the current ScotRail franchise—Scottish Ministers will have sole responsibility for issuing objectives, instructions and guidance to the new rail authority that it is proposed should be established under forthcoming railways legislation. That responsibility will be exercised within the overall Great Britain strategic policy framework for railways, and will allow Scottish Ministers to instruct the rail authority on matters such as service levels and fares policies, within relevant contractual constraints.
    Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Will the Minister clarify the position relating to ScotRail services that pass through my constituency and terminate at Carlisle?
    Mr. McLeish: Those matters will be dealt with in due course. I shall be dealing with a fair amount of rail policy this afternoon.
    Mr. Dalyell: Does my hon. Friend honestly think that, when in three years' time he stands at the Dispatch Box at Holyrood rather than Westminster—as he doubtless will—he will be able to persuade his newly elected Scottish colleagues to maintain that position?
    Mr. McLeish: I think the answer is yes. I am about to give details of a fairly comprehensive policy in which the Scottish Executive will be involved, which will, I think, go some way towards not only reassuring hon. Members but dealing with my hon. Friend's point.
    Financial responsibility for those passenger rail services will be transferred to the Scottish Executive. In the current year, public expenditure on the ScotRail franchise amounts to some £280 million. If the Scottish Executive wishes to procure more rail services, it will be able to do so, but it will of course have to find the additional resources.
    The cost of cross-border sleeper services is met from the ScotRail budget. Those services are a particularly important and sensitive issue for Scottish travellers. The Government propose that Scottish Ministers should ultimately be able to issue objectives, instructions and guidance in respect of sleeper services, subject to the rail authority's being satisfied that, in its opinion, they do not have an adverse impact on its non-Scottish budget or on the operation of passenger or freight services generally. In respect of other cross-border services, we propose that Scottish Ministers will be able to issue non-binding guidance. That applies to Virgin and to the Great North Eastern Railway.
    We think that, when we are making proposals to achieve true integration of transport in Scotland, it makes obvious sense—within the new GB rail regulatory framework—to give the Scottish Parliament legislative competence over both the bus and the rail responsibilities of the Strathclyde passenger transport authority and executive, and those of any similar body that the Scottish Parliament may establish in due course. We shall consider how best to do that in the context of, and consistent with, the new legislative framework.

    1063
    Amendment No. 211, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe), seeks to ensure that the continued reservation of section 136 of the Railways Act 1993 deals only with legislative competence as to who may be a competent authority in relation to EC regulations about the financial status of railway undertakings. The Government intend the Scottish Parliament to have competence over the provision of grants for railway services, excluding the carriage of freight. We accept that the current drafting of the reservation of section 136 may be wider than was intended; we undertake to consider that and, if necessary, table an appropriate amendment later.
    Mr. Dalyell: In preparation for the supplementary to my Question 33 to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions this afternoon—which dealt with investment in the west coast main line—I spoke to Mr. Lew Adams of ASLEF, who told me that a vast amount of investment was needed for, in particular, the Scottish section of the line. Under the new set-up, who will be responsible for that investment? Will it come from the Scottish Parliament's budget?
    Mr. McLeish: No. The reconstruction of the west coast main line will be a matter for my colleagues at Westminster, and for the new rail authority. Obviously, it will have significant implications for Scotland, and that will be one of the issues involved in dealing with ScotRail. It is mostly self-contained in Scotland, but we need to involve ourselves with other services that operate across the border.
    Hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South, have pointed out that, under the Bill's current provisions, the promoter of a new railway in Scotland would have to come to the Westminster Parliament for any necessary powers to proceed with construction. That would be done under existing private legislation procedures. I appreciate that there is some dissatisfaction with the private legislation procedure that is available to Scottish promoters, but the procedure is not the issue. As it stands, the Bill reserves the provision of railway services to Westminster. The Government, however, are prepared to reconsider the point in the context of the new regulatory arrangements that we shall propose for railways, with a view to ensuring that promoters of new railways, stations and maintenance depots in Scotland will be able to seek any necessary powers for proceeding with construction from the Scottish Parliament.
    The detailed provisions required will need to be considered alongside the new rail legislation. On the presumption that a change to schedule 5 of the Bill will be needed, that will be secured either through the procedure set out in clause 29 or through new legislation.
    Amendment No. 210 would have the effect of devolving legislative competence in respect of the carriage of goods, including grants for freight facilities and track access. It would thus be open to the Scottish Parliament to enact legislation on the carriage of goods on the Scottish rail network, and to introduce new freight grant schemes. We believe that such an arrangement would run counter to our policy of maintaining a national
    1064
    rail network, and could lead to confusion among applicants for grants, with different criteria being used to assess applications north and south of the border. The Bill already provides for the devolution of grant-making powers for passenger services and for executive devolution of responsibility—within the GB policy framework, of course—for the administration of freight facilities grants and track access grants.
    The Rail Users Consultative Committee for Scotland and the Central Rail Users Consultative Committee play a significant role in representing the perspective of users of the privatised railway. Provision will be made for Scottish Ministers to appoint the chairman of the Rail Users Consultative Committee for Scotland. Provision will also be made for the annual reports of both committees to be laid before the Scottish Parliament.
    Amendment No. 498 proposes that the Scottish Parliament may require Railtrack and the operators of franchised rail services in Scotland to report to it. As hon. Members will know, Railtrack and the train operating companies are fully privatised. No such powers are currently available to this Parliament, and the question of devolution therefore does not arise.
    I hope that that full explanation of the Government's intentions in regard to rail matters will reassure hon. Members that we are committed to securing a significant, central and responsible role in respect of rail services in Scotland, and that they will not press their amendments.
    Mrs. Ray Michie: Is the Minister going to deal with amendment No. 481? If so, may I ask him about it then?
    Mr. McLeish: No doubt the hon. Lady is becoming slightly impatient, but I am about to deal with the amendment.
    The Government do not accept amendment No. 481, which seeks to reserve the matter of financial assistance to shipping services that both start and finish outside Scotland. The Bill currently reserves assistance for shipping services that start or finish, or both, outside Scotland, and provides that financial assistance for shipping services operating wholly within Scotland will be a devolved matter.
    The Government agree that shipping services between Scotland and other countries are of economic significance to Scotland. However, the intention of the Bill is to give the Scottish Parliament appropriate powers to maintain and develop the internal shipping services that it considers necessary for the maintenance and improvement of economic and social conditions in Scotland, particularly in island and remote highland communities. The amendment would give the Scottish Parliament and Executive competence over financial assistance for existing or new external shipping services?
    Mrs. Michie: Which shipping services that start or finish, or both, outside Scotland currently receive financial assistance? Will the Minister confirm that the Scottish Parliament will have nothing to do with the Campbeltown to Ballycastle ferry service? After all, that service was set up jointly by the Scottish and the Northern Ireland Offices. The South Antrim Steam Packet Company has gone off with the Caledonian MacBrayne Claymore boat, and has to lease it back to Caledonian

    1065
    MacBrayne during the winter. Surely to goodness the Scottish Office or the Scottish Parliament will still have something to do with that service.
    Mr. McLeish: I can reassure the hon. Lady that we are concerned about the development that she has mentioned. We are looking at it closely. After the service was established, boats were taken out of commission in a pick-and-choose way to service other parts of the United Kingdom, which does not make for consistency or coherence. Unfortunately, a private initiative is involved, but the Government are watching the situation carefully. Our main concern is to represent the interests of the people of Scotland. I shall write to the hon. Lady about the up-to-date position. In terms of her first question, I do not think that she would expect me to know where all services start and finish. However, as a matter of courtesy, I shall be happy to provide information on that.
    Mr. Swayne: Is the fact that the Minister is looking closely at the matter not in itself an argument for devolving it to the Scottish Parliament?
    Mr. McLeish: No, it is more a case of ensuring that, when a service route is set up, it should be proceeded with. The service that the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) mentioned was not a good one in that the operators were allowed to take out ferries when they wished. In a sense, that service was provided because of the lack of any other. It could have been a good idea at the time, but the Government must carefully watch what is being done. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are worried about that issue and I hope that we shall not see a repeat of the problem.
    5.30 pm
    Mr. Alasdair Morgan: I seek clarification. There is a proposal, which is at an early stage, to operate a hovercraft service from Kirkcudbright to the Isle of Man. Is the Minister saying that the Scottish Parliament would have no locus in the setting up of that service?
    Mr. McLeish: I think that that is the case, but I am not aware of the details of the proposal. I should be grateful to the hon. Gentleman if he would furnish those, as that would enable me to respond in the context of what I have said.
    The Government consider that services between Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom are best dealt with on a UK-wide basis as they are as much the concern of the other parts of the UK that are connected to Scotland by them as they are of Scotland. Further, the devolution of international shipping services to or from Scotland would be inconsistent with the general reservation of international matters, including trade. For those reasons, I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
    Dr. Godman: I support amendments Nos. 537 to 544, but I have a couple of observations and I should like to ask some questions. In his lively speech, which was his maiden speech from the exalted position of the Opposition Front Bench, the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) spoke several times about Caledonian MacBrayne. I remind the Minister that he has promised to meet me, Mr. James McKnight, Mr. Steve Todd and
    1066
    Councillor Harry Mulholland, the leader of Inverclyde council, to discuss Caledonian MacBrayne in relation to the Deloitte and Touche report.
    On page 70, schedule 5 contains the heading "Exceptions from reservation". The amendments propose some changes. I refer the Minister to the part under the heading which states:
    "Regulation of works which may obstruct or endanger navigation."
    That makes good sense, especially in terms of harbours and the coastline, but I should like to see it extended to include fishing operations. I am thinking of our inshore fishermen and especially those who use static gear and whose livelihoods may be affected by work of one kind or another such as, for example, the laying of gas pipelines and other such works that have to start on shore. If the livelihood of a static gear fisherman is threatened, could he or she—I appreciate that most of them are men—appeal to the Scottish Parliament, and would it be able to help?
    Perhaps the Minister will say that static gear fishermen and other inshore fishermen are protected by other legislation. If that is the case, well and good, but works of the type that I have mentioned, such as the laying of pipelines or the installation of offshore ribs, could displace our fishermen. Therefore, it is right to have an exemption to cover obstruction or the endangering of navigation, but it needs to go further in the interests of our fishermen. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that such fishermen are protected by extant legislation, or he will say that he will look again at the issue of regulating construction work in the interests of our fishermen.
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: I have a couple of questions about sections 41 to 50 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982. I am glad that the Government have tabled amendment No. 541. which limits the number of clauses from that Act to be devolved. I am slightly concerned about the detail of how the Act will work in terms of devolving power. Section 41 of the 1982 Act will be devolved to the Scottish Parliament and, under that section, the Secretary of State has power to acquire and manage land for civil aviation purposes.
    Section 41(3) states:
    "nothing in this subsection shall be taken to affect the operation of section 5 of the Defence of the Realm (Acquisition of Land) Act 1916 (which confers on a person from whom land was acquired under that Act a right of pre-emption in the case of the subsequent sale of the land) as respects any land acquired under that Act."
    In the event of land being required for aviation purposes pursuant to a decision of the Scottish Parliament becoming redundant for those purposes, would the Scottish Parliament be able to overrule the provisions of the 1916 Act and refuse the person from whom the land was acquired the right to its return, as would apply in the rest of the United Kingdom? It is a small point of detail, but it could affect the rights of people in Scotland and may end up in a constitutional argument between the Edinburgh and Westminster Parliaments about whether the Scottish Parliament would have the right to refuse to return to a citizen land that was acquired under its powers of compulsory purchase. Such a right would not prevail in England and Wales.
    Mr. McLeish: I shall deal first with the questions about the Civil Aviation Act. Plainly, I am not able now to give

    1067
    details about that, but I promise to investigate the matter and to write to the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) on his detailed point. I give the same undertaking to my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) in the context of protection for fishermen and fishing. I shall write to my hon. Friend about that, but on the Caledonian MacBrayne issue as it affects his area, I can confirm that we have agreed to have a meeting. I look forward to that being established at the earliest possible date. We are about to have the report on the ferries that we want to discuss and, obviously, such a meeting would be opportune.
    Mr. Ancram: In the light of the number of letters that the Minister proposes to send to hon. Members, could he assure the Committee that he will make those available in the Library for the rest of us?
    Mr. McLeish: We are nearing the end of the Committee stage but, out of courtesy, that will be done in all cases. Copies will be placed in the Library and sent to the leaders of the political parties.
    Mr. Gorrie: My hon. Friends and I will have to look carefully at the Minister's written words. We still think that the distinction between those aspects of transport that will be regulated in Scotland and those that will be regulated in Westminster is not as clear as it should be. We reserve the right to raise them in a different way.
    The answer to amendment No. 495, which is about the licensing of buses, seemed particularly unsatisfactory. Just because a few buses go across the border is not a reason for the Scottish Parliament not to have the right to regulate the 90-odd per cent. of buses that run purely within Scotland. That seems to be a weak argument. The Scottish Parliament may wish to adopt different public transport policies, which would involve different licensing. So long as they were safe and met international standards, the Parliament should be allowed to do that. However, we wish to concentrate on specific transport issues at a later stage and, for that reason, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendments made: No. 533, in page 69, line 10, at beginning insert 'The subject-matter of.
    No. 534, in page 69, line 34, at end insert—
    '(aa) the Hovercraft Act 1968, except so far as relating to the regulation of noise and vibration caused by hovercraft,'.
    No. 535, in page 69, line 35, at end insert—
    '(bb) section 2 of the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973 (prohibition on approaching dangerous wrecks),'.
    No. 536, in page 69, line 36, at end insert—
    '(cc) the Dangerous Vessels Act 1985,'.
    No. 537, in page 70, line 5, leave out 'marine works' and insert 'boatslips'.
    No. 538, in page 70, line 6, leave out 'in (d) above' and insert
    'by virtue of paragraph (bb), (cc), (d) or (f)'.
    No. 539, in page 70, leave out lines 14 to 16. No. 540, in page 70, line 34, at end insert—
    '() section 31 (power to carry on ancillary business in connection with local authority aerodromes),'.
    No. 541, in page 70, line 39, after '41 to', insert '43 and'.
    No. 542, in page 70, line 40, after 'is', insert 'to be or was'.
    No. 543, in page 70, line 44, at end insert—
    'The subject-matter of section 59 (acquisition of land and rights over land) and section 60 (disposal of compulsorily acquired land) of the Airports Act 1986 where land is to be or was acquired for the purpose of airport development or expansion.'.
    No. 544, in page 71, line 4, leave out 'Standards' and insert 'Technical specifications'.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
    Mr. Oliver Heald: I beg to move amendment No. 406, in page 71, line 15, leave out from beginning to end of line 7 on page 72.
    The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following Amendments: No. 268, in page 71, leave out lines 17 to 23 and insert—
    'The specific subject matter of any United Kingdom legislation which provides for assistance for social security purposes to or in respect of individuals by way of benefits and the circumstances directly arising from such legislation in which a person is liable to maintain himself or another.'.
    No. 499, in page 71, line 29, leave out from 'Fund' to 'recovery' in line 30.
    No. 270, in page 71, line 29, leave out 'administration and'.
    Government amendment No. 545.
    No. 271, in page 71, line 31, leave out from 'damages' to end of line 34.
    Government amendment No. 546.
    No. 269, in page 71, line 36, at beginning insert—
    'The administration of schemes providing assistance for social security purposes to or in respect of individuals by way of benefits.'.
    Government amendment No. 547.
    No. 500, in page 71, line 39, after 'need),' insert '25'.
    Government amendment No. 548.
    No. 482, in page 71, line 42, at end insert—
    'Non-contributory benefits'.
    Government amendments Nos. 549 and 550.
    Mr. Heald: You will remember, Mr. Lord, that last night when you were in the Chair, there was a good deal of criticism from certain hon. Members-the hon. Members for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy) and for Dumfries (Mr. Brown), for example-about the fact that Opposition amendments proposed that law and order issues should be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. What was said at that time was, "What about the social issues-the issues of social justice?" With amendment No. 406, we have the opportunity to devolve social security schemes to the Scottish Parliament. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) shakes his head, but this is something with which he might, on mature reflection, agree.
    Mr. John McAllion: I am not mature.
    Mr. Heald: Who am I to disagree with the hon. Gentleman?

    1069
    My first point is that the purpose of a social security system must be to meet people's individual needs and circumstances at the most appropriate level and as close as possible to the individual. That allows for the effective targeting of benefits in the context in which the individual lives. Similarly, in a democracy, if the Scottish Parliament is to deal with domestic Scottish matters, what could be more important than helping people in need and providing them with security?
    International trends in recent years show that there is international recognition now that what works best is vigorous case management in the welfare sector and a customised approach. Since last July, America has gone from a federal system of welfare to a state-based system, where payments are made by block grant to the state and considerable discretion is given to meet local needs.
    The effect has been to encourage further devolution down the chain to political units below state level, such as the counties. If it is possible for the United States to do that, it is something that we should consider. In addition, American states are able to enhance the benefits that they give to individuals from state taxes and to launch new schemes within certain parameters of the legislation.
    Mr. Frank Roy: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is still a federal system of social security in the United States?
    5.45 pm
    Mr. Heald: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the devolved schemes that I have described come under the temporary assistance to needy families scheme. Of course, some schemes are not devolved, but those that are deal with issues such as income support and the key issues for families, and I believe that it is right that we should examine them in the context of a Scottish Parliament.
    In the UK, the trend has been to try to devolve such issues to local level. That is best seen in relation to care in the community, where the approach has been to make money that was previously delivered through the income support system to pay nursing and care home fees a local government responsibility. Of course, there are criticisms of the system—no one can deny that—but I do not know many people who seriously argue that we should go back to the old system.
    Dr. Godman: The hon. Gentleman talks about local need. I am listening carefully to him, but am I right in thinking that his amendment would sweep away parts of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968? I remind him that section 10 of the Act allows social work departments to give financial assistance to people in extreme need. Let me give him an example from my constituency, where a woman in need and her three children were provided with some financial assistance by way of section 10 of the very Act that he would sweep away.
    Mr. Heald: The hon. Gentleman will be relieved to hear that I do not believe that he is correct. Amendment No. 406 suggests that none of the social security schemes should be reserved, which means that the administration of those particular benefits would be a matter for the Scottish Parliament. As he will see, all of them would then come within the compass of the Scottish Parliament. One of the regrettable things about one of the Government
    1070
    amendments is that it takes out community care direct payments—one of the small number of social security-style benefits that the Scottish Parliament was going to be able to deal with—so that the Parliament will have even less to administer.
    Mr. Dalyell: May I ask the hon. Gentleman the same question, or the same type of question, as I asked the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie), although I do not expect the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman to be able to answer it offhand? What are the costs of unbundling the social security system of the United Kingdom? The Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley), is here and we welcome his presence. It may be that he will whisper in the ear of my hon. Friend the Minister of State. What are the costs of disentangling—dewiring—the Blackpool centre or the Newcastle centre? It is an enormously complicated operation, I suspect.
    Mr. Heald: The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asks a question to which I confess I do not know the answer—[Interruption.] The Under-Secretary of State for Social Security laughs, but we have come across situations where he had no better idea than I did.
    Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Heald: Let me finish, if I may.
    The hon. Member for Linlithgow must recognise that the system that the Bill puts in place involves the Scottish Parliament incurring costs in respect of social security. Every time the tax-varying power is used, the net incomes of numerous people in Scotland who claim benefits will be reduced, which will mean that extra social security payments will have to be made.
    In the Bill's explanatory and financial memorandum, the figure is put at about £5 million a year, if the power is used. For personal pensions, the cost would be about £4 million. The set-up costs that are set out in the Bill amount to a further significant figure, so the hon. Member for Linlithgow is right that costs are involved in changing the relationship between Scotland and the rest of the UK in respect of social security. However, there is also a prize to be won. Is not the ability to deliver benefits at local level such a valuable one that it overrides some of the short-term costs that will arise in reprogramming computers and so on? I do not believe that it would be an impossible task. One has only to consider the working families tax credit, which involves substantial changes to the benefits system, or some of the other changes that have been introduced over the years. They have all been done at a cost, but not at disproportionate cost. It is for the Government, rather than the Opposition, to say what the costs will be. I look forward to hearing from the Minister a detailed account of the costs involved.
    Another issue concerns expectations. Many people in Scotland believe, as a result of what was said in the referendum campaign and before, that Scottish representatives in the Parliament will be able to have a serious effect on the lives of individuals in need. If all the most important areas of policy are left at Westminster, people's hopes are bound to be cast down. I ask the Minister to take that into account when considering whether the social security system should be devolved.

    1071
    Why should the system not be devolved? The Minister may say that it cannot be done—that it is too difficult to separate the structures. I believe that, if it can be done in the United States, which has a far more complicated structure than we do, it can be done here. The Minister may say that it will create different systems on either side of the border. However, he is prepared to have different systems on either side of the border to deal with a whole range of matters, including health, education and law and order, so that argument will not wash. The Minister may say that it cannot be done because it is too difficult to settle the finance. Since part of the finance has already been separated through the tax-raising power and since certain separate arrangements have already been made for social security, that argument does not wash either.
    I believe that the Government have decided not to devolve social security, not for any of the reasons I have given, but because they do not trust a Scottish Parliament to make the decisions on welfare that they believe should be made here at Westminster.
    Mr. Browne: We have already had a contribution from the Opposition Front Bench from an hon. Member who did not know that there was a separate legal system in Scotland. Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that on the examples he has given to illustrate the difference—health, education and criminal justice—we already have distinctly different procedures in Scotland?
    Mr. Heald: Obviously, the hon. Gentleman was not listening. He cannot expect me to read out every single power that is being devolved to the Scottish Parliament.
    Mr. Browne rose—
    Mr. Heald: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman again.
    I want to explain why the Government have decided that they do not trust the Scottish Parliament on welfare. I think that it is because they believe that there is a strong demand in Scotland for a welfare agenda that is different from their own. We can look at what happened recently over single parent benefit. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Chisholm) stood up for what he believed was the proper approach on that issue. I do not agree with him, but he did take a stand.
    We can look at who led the way in Scotland in strongly opposing any undermining of disability benefits. There is a list of Labour Members that would be recognisable to anyone in the House: it includes the hon. Members for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke), for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson), for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) and for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman).
    Dr. Godman: The hon. Gentleman mispronounced Greenock.
    Mr. Heald: I do not think that that is the hon. Gentleman's best point.
    Those hon. Members are known in the House as people who stand for a different view on welfare benefits from that expressed from the Government Front Bench.
    1072
    That also applies to the way in which the benefit appeals system works. The hon. Member for Maryhill has taken a stand on that and has put forward her view about how the independent tribunal service should be changed.
    It would be worse still for the Government if the opinion polls are right and a Scottish National party-Liberal Democrat Administration were formed with the Secretary of State as the Leader of the Opposition in a Scottish Parliament. Who supported my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) on the wind chill factor legislation? Who supported him on the cold weather payments? The list includes SNP Members such as the hon. Members for Perth (Ms Cunningham), for Moray (Mrs. Ewing)—[Interruption.] I thought I pronounced Moray correctly. The Minister and his hon. Friends will not avoid the argument by criticising my pronunciation.
    On important issues such as the wind chill factor and cold weather payments, the hon. Members for Moray and for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) and the hon. and learned Members for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) and for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) are leading campaigners, with my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley, for a totally different view. When the Government were in opposition, almost every one of the Scottish Members backed that proposition on the wind chill factor. The Government fear that there would be trouble at home. They believe that all the Scottish Members who have genuine beliefs would stand up to the manufactured product on the Government Front Bench.
    Mrs. Fyfe: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Alex Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Heald: The hon. Gentleman is second in line.
    Mrs. Fyfe: We are all glad to hear the hon. Gentleman display his familiarity with Scotland in his pronunciation of our place names. I must point out to him that, when I complain about the length of time that people have to wait for benefit issues to be resolved by an independent tribunal, I am calling for reform for the whole of the United Kingdom, not just Scotland.
    Mr. Heald: That is the case now, but is the hon. Lady saying that the Scottish Parliament should not be able to regularise the matter for Scotland? I doubt whether she is, given her credentials on devolution.
    Mr. Salmond: Can the second in line have a chance now?
    Mr. Heald: Yes.
    Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman said that when Labour Members were in opposition, they were enthusiastic about the proposition on the wind chill factor. Can the hon. Gentleman remind us of the previous Government's position?
    Mr. Heald: The hon. Gentleman will recall that in the debate on this issue, the then Government made it clear that the matter should be fully reviewed by the experts,

    1073
    and it was. What is more, the present Government did not follow the advice. There is no reason for Opposition Front Benchers to take any criticism on that. As we are currently standing shoulder to shoulder with the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) perhaps he should support us. [Interruption.] This is one of the few issues where that occurs.
    As with so much of the Bill and the general approach to devolution, the Government duck difficult questions and embarrassing issues. They try to sweep them under the carpet. It is no good looking at the opinion polls in Scotland and despairing, as the Government must, because people in Scotland are no doubt saying that, when it comes to a serious issue, Henry is hiding from it, Calum is concealing himself from it and Donald is ducking it.
    Mr. McAllion: The longer the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) spoke, the more he was being deserted by his hon. Friends. He is now left with the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing), who will sit through just about anything to prove her loyalty to the party.
    Mr. Heald: Does the hon. Gentleman not think that perhaps the argument is over?
    Mr. McAllion: I did not understand the question, never mind wanting to provide an answer. [Interruption.]
    The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. It is important that hon. Members returning to the Chamber are conscious of who is on their feet. They should not walk through their line of vision.
    Mr. McAllion: As I said, Mr. Lord, I was worried about speaking to this group of amendments after hearing the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, speak to the previous group of amendments. He said that he was dismayed by the number of home rule Members who were speaking in favour of reserving matters to the Westminster Parliament, rather than of sending them to the Scottish Parliament, and commented on what fun it was to watch us all running in fear of the "smack of discipline". I suspect that Tory Members are much more adept at taking the smack of discipline than are Labour Members.
    I am delighted to discover that I am able to oppose a Tory amendment—amendment No. 406, which would devolve responsibility for social security to the Scottish Parliament. I have never believed that social security issues should be devolved to a Scottish Parliament for several reasons, one of which is very principled—the limits of poverty cannot be defined by geographical boundaries. Poverty is a class—not a nationalist—issue. I am as concerned about the poor in the centre of London, in Birmingham, in the midlands and in the north of England as I am about the poor in Scotland. It is certainly a matter of principle that, regardless of where one lives in the United Kingdom, one should have access to exactly the same benefits as everyone else in this Kingdom.
    6 pm
    There are also practical reasons why a big problem would be caused by establishing different benefit levels in different parts of the United Kingdom, and they cannot
    1074
    merely be shrugged off, as the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire tried to do in his short speech. Let us think about it. If there is a higher—or lower—benefit level in Scotland, what will people on benefit do? They will go to the part of the country where they think they will receive the most housing benefit, council tax benefit, income support and jobseeker' s allowance.
    Ultimately, we might have to patrol the borders—just as they do in America, which has patrols on its border with Mexico. The Americans turn back the Mexican poor. They will not give them access to the United States. People who envisage aping such a system and say that they are trying to help the poor will only hurt the poor. They will only make our country like America, which is the last thing that I want to do.
    Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman must be aware that substantially better social security benefits are available in other European countries. People here would be entitled to those benefits if they chose to move. Why has there not been a mass exodus to, for example, the south of France, to take advantage of them?
    Mr. McAllion: If the hon. Gentleman ever speaks to anyone on benefit in Whitfield, he may come to understand why there has not been a mass exodus to the south of France. It is not really a practical proposition. However, it is practical for people from Dundee to move south. Time and again, I deal with such people in my constituency. Poor people regularly move across the border separating Scotland and England, but they almost never move to France, Germany or Italy. Perhaps the situation is different in Banff and Buchan—it may well be.
    Mr. Salmond: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to tell us about the movement of poor people between Spain and France. Does he have any knowledge of that movement? Does he think that the substantial differences in social security between those two countries is a significant factor in that movement?
    Mr. McAllion: I have some knowledge of the differences between Spain and France, but I live in Scotland, which shares a border with England. I am speaking about Scotland and England, not Spain and France. If the hon. Gentleman walks out on to the streets outside, he will find poor Scots from every city in Scotland. They come to London looking for help and for benefit. He is trying to minimise a very serious problem. It would be absolute nonsense to establish a different social security system in Scotland from that which pertains in the other parts of this island. If he does not know that, he should immediately come to his senses.
    Mr. Heald: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that some aspects of social security policy, such as
    "National Assistance … charges for local authority accommodation … social welfare services …payments towards maintenance of children …promotion of welfare of children in need",
    will be matters for the Scottish Parliament? The same is not true of some of the major and important schemes, such as income support and family credit. How can it be right that, when the first real sniff of responsibility in social security is offered by the Opposition, the hon. Gentleman rejects it out of hand?
    Mr. McAllion: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken in confusing the type of payments that should be made

    1075
    through local authority social work departments with the type of payments that are made through the social security system, which is run at a United Kingdom level. He does not live in Scotland. If he did live in Scotland and understood the social security system, he would not make such inane interventions. The two systems cannot be compared.
    Mrs. Eleanor Laing rose—
    Mr. Heald: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. McAllion: I shall give way to the hon. Lady, who used to live in Scotland, because we know that she read the Herald.
    Mrs. Laing: Did the hon. Gentleman really mean what he said a moment ago—that Scots come south to London looking for benefit? I thought that we came south to London looking for work.
    Mr. McAllion: The hon. Member for Epping Forest forgets that we live in a capitalist system, and that those people, after they get here, do not find work. They are thrown on to benefit, and into bed-and-breakfast accommodation and all kinds of horrors—which not only poor Scots in London but poor Londoners have to face.
    A capitalist system is a wonderful thing if one gets to the top, with a good job and a nice house. However, for the poor and those without power, wealth or resources—from the other end of the telescope, which has been mentioned earlier in the debate—the system is not so marvellous. If the hon. Member for Epping Forest saw the capitalist system through their eyes, she might understand that we need a socialist system in the United Kingdom—all of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Swayne: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the regrettable problem to which he referred—the number of Scots in London who are on benefit but came looking for work—exists under the current unified social security system? Therefore, there is potential—if the Scottish Parliament has control over its own system—to improve the situation.
    Mr. McAllion: The problem with the current social security system is not that it is unified across the United Kingdom but that it is under-resourced. The solution to the problem is not to break up the United Kingdom social security system. I passionately believe that people—from whatever part of this island they come—have the same rights to the same social security benefits. I hold to that basic principle, which is why I shall gladly oppose amendment No. 406.
    I should like to raise several issues with my hon. Friend the Minister. We have been told that funding and administration of housing benefit and council tax benefit should be a reserved matter. The Bill states that
    "administration and funding of housing benefit and council tax benefit by local authorities"
    are illustrations of reservation. Why will Government amendment No. 545 remove the phrase "by local authorities"? I hope that that does not mean that the
    1076
    Government plan on taking responsibility for administration of housing benefit from local authorities and on establishing a new system in Scotland to administer housing benefit. I should like an answer to that question.
    The housing benefit level is very closely linked to rent levels in the rented sector. As my hon. Friend knows, the rented sector in Scotland is dominated by local authorities—which are by far the largest element in the rented sector. The voluntary and private sectors are minuscule compared with the Scottish council sector. He knows also that funding to maintain low rents—such as housing support grants and rate fund contributions—was gradually withdrawn by successive Tory Governments. Consequently, rents went ever upwards, and housing benefit levels went up with them. The last figure that I saw, which is out of date, was that housing benefit in Scotland is costing about £900 million annually.
    The only sure way of reducing that housing benefit level is to reduce the rent levels that must be paid by those on low incomes. Rent level reductions can be achieved only by co-operation between the Scottish Parliament and local authorities. It will be for the Scottish Parliament to find funding to allow local authorities to reduce rents, and thereby to reduce the housing benefit bill.
    What worries me is that the Scottish Parliament, if it spends some of its scarce resources on bringing down rent levels, will not gain the benefits of those reductions. The benefits will accrue to the Westminster Parliament, which will have a much-reduced housing benefit bill. I should like to know how those benefits can accrue to the Scottish Parliament, rather than being transferred to the Westminster Parliament.
    Mr. Salmond: Does the hon. Gentleman accept the extension of that point? Under the Government's proposals, it would be a temptation—although not in any administration in which I was involved—to increase rents, to increase the flow of housing benefit.
    Mr. McAllion: It is not only a temptation—it happens in the real world. Every hon. Member representing a constituency in Scotland is aware that councils starved of cash simply raise rents. They know that 60 per cent. to 70 per cent. of their tenants receive housing benefit and that someone else will pay the bill. We have to break out of that trap. I am trying to get the Government so say how they intend to fund the method by which we bring down rents in Scotland, and I hope that the actions of the Scottish Parliament in doing that will be rewarded by the savings in housing benefit being transferred back to it.
    While I am talking about housing, may I ask my hon. Friend to give some thought to the stock transfer process, and especially the stock of Scottish Homes, which is being transferred into the voluntary sector? While we had Scottish Homes, the old Scottish Special Housing Association, housing benefit for its tenants was administered by Scottish Homes itself.
    Of course, now that Scottish Homes has ceased to be a landlord and its tenants are being transferred into the voluntary sector, the claims for housing benefit are placed on the local authority in the appropriate area. However, local authorities have not been recompensed for the additional burden that they have had to take on as a result of voluntary stock transfers. I should be interested to know what the Government intend to do about that.

    1077
    I deal now with the other payments made by social work departments, in respect of social security in particular. I am very conscious of the work of welfare rights officers who do a tremendous amount of good across Scotland, helping people with their benefit claims. They are funded solely through social work departments and the local authorities themselves, even though they are an integral part of the social security system in Scotland. It is unfair that local authorities are not recompensed for the fact that they employ welfare rights officers to help the smooth operation of the benefit system. Have the Government any plans to tackle that problem?
    Finally, I draw attention to the operation of the social security system and the fact that, for example, the jobseeker's allowance regime and the benefit integrity project are forcing people off benefit. This sometimes has the effect of forcing people into abject poverty and out of the social security system. People in such circumstances often turn to the local authority for assistance, and it is the social work department that has to pick up the bill.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) spoke about a family in his constituency who had to get section 10 payments under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 because the system failed them. It is unfair to expect the Scottish Parliament and local authorities to provide a safety net for people who have been swept out of the social security system by changes implemented at Westminster.
    The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire said that there was a strong demand in Scotland for a different approach to social security. I deny that in the sense that it is not only in Scotland that such a demand exists. He also mentioned the cuts to the single parent benefit. Forty-seven Labour Members voted against those cuts, and only a minority came from Scotland—the vast majority came from England.
    The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire also mentioned the reduction in disability benefits and the fact that many Scottish Members of Parliament opposed it. However, many English Members did the same—has the hon. Gentleman never heard of the Campaign group of socialist Members of Parliament which has been united in opposition to such cuts? Most of the group's members come from English constituencies. There is no geographical difference in the approach to social security; there is a class difference, but not a geographical one.
    I seem to remember that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) was a parliamentary private secretary under the previous Government who opposed the taking into account of the wind chill factor in cold weather payments. He had the chance to do something, but now, in opposition, has the nerve to lecture the incoming Government, despite the shortcomings of the Tories when they were in power.
    Mr. John Swinney: I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this debate. The best that could be said about the main Tory amendment is that it is a probing amendment, although how far it probed, I am not terribly sure, because many of the details necessary to enable us to come to a considered judgment about it were sadly lacking in what we heard.
    1078
    6.15 pm
    I hope that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) will take heart from the proposals that I intend to make in speaking to amendments Nos. 268 to 271. Their purpose is to provide the Scottish Parliament with additional powers to develop welfare initiatives and to enable it to have a role in the administration of social security. Their origin lies primarily in the thinking of the Scottish Constitutional Convention which, in 1990, called for the administration of social security to be a devolved function. In 1995, it softened that commitment somewhat and asserted that
    "Scotland's Parliament will co-operate with the Scottish offices of the Department of Social Security"—
    Mr. James Wallace: Why was not the hon. Gentleman in there supporting us?
    Mr. Swinney: I remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that I have come to the rescue of the proposals that he submitted and supported at that time. The convention's documents from those periods supported the notion that the administration of social security should be a devolved function, and I am glad to have the opportunity to remind Labour and Liberal Democrat Members of previous commitments.
    Those commitments, which recognised the distinctive interest of Scotland in the provision of welfare support, were important in setting out the role of the Scottish Parliament in deciding how best to administer social security issues from a Scottish perspective.
    Amendments Nos. 268 to 271 would give the Parliament the ability to supplement social security provision from Westminster. They would not reduce any benefit level produced by the United Kingdom social security system, but the Scottish Parliament could, for example, provide a Christmas bonus for pensioners or deliver cold weather payments, although we hope that it would do so when the weather was cold, rather than in the spring.
    The amendments would also give the Parliament a say in the administration of social security issues, and we have heard examples of the important effect that that could have. In rural areas such as the constituency that I represent, claimants of benefits have grave difficulties in getting to the premises of the Employment Service because of transport problems. I am sure that in tackling such issues, a Scottish Parliament could make a material difference to the way in which benefits are administered. The Parliament could undertake initiatives—
    Mr. Heald rose—
    Mr. Swinney: I am short of time, and the hon. Gentleman spoke for far too long and made a rather irrelevant speech, so I will not take interventions from him.
    The Parliament could undertake initiatives to ensure that a higher proportion of elderly or disabled people took up the full benefits to which they were entitled. The hon. Member for Dundee, East also referred to the benefit integrity project. Hon. Members of all parties recognise that there are grave concerns about this project and how it is going about its business. I like to think that a Scottish Parliament could insist that before any decision was made

    1079
    to reduce the benefit of an individual, the claimant could be the subject of a medical examination before a form adjudicator simply scrubbed out his benefit. The Government have made some important concessions—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Roy) says that that is already happening. A couple of weeks ago, I met a lady whose benefits were cut in October, before the revised benefit integrity project rules came into play. She has lost some benefit, but the Government are not planning to reconsider her case—that is the reality of what is happening.
    I should like a Scottish Parliament to exercise a judgment and insist that before decisions are taken on the administration of social security, the necessary safeguards and quality judgments are made in every respect. A strict code of conduct for adjudication officers would guarantee that individuals were treated properly and fairly.
    All of the initiatives to which I have referred would be possible only if the Parliament had powers to decide how to deploy its resources. That choice should be open to the Parliament, and it is a choice that this House should give it.
    I am about to conclude my remarks in order to give the Minister the opportunity to sum up in his usual fashion. There is enormous concern about welfare issues. Last Thursday, we saw the first dipping of the Government's toe in the water of welfare reform, but the Green Paper did not tackle much of the unease in our community. When the Scottish Labour party conference is delivering some fairly stiff judgments on the Government's record on welfare, a role for the Scottish Parliament in the administration of social security benefits is fundamental.
    I have consulted many voluntary sector organisations in Scotland, including the Poverty Alliance, the Scottish Old Age Pensions Association, the Scottish Out of School Network, Care in the Community, the Scottish Support for Learning Association, the Scottish Ethnic Minorities Unit, Age Concern Scotland and the Rural Forum. All of them have given a positive welcome to the amendments to which I am speaking.
    The consensus in Scotland is that we want to improve welfare benefits and the administration of the welfare system. We demand a civilised welfare system, and I hope that the Government will endorse our modest proposals to ensure that that is the case.
    Mr. McLeish: In the two minutes I have available, I shall speak to amendments Nos. 545 to 550. Their purpose is essentially to clarify certain parts of section 1 of head 6. I hope that the Committee will agree that they are helpful.
    I am not persuaded by any of arguments from the nationalists or the Conservatives. The Government remain responsible for the national social security benefits system. They should be responsible and accountable for the delivery of benefits as well as for the benefits themselves. Neither should it be possible for the Scottish Parliament to set up an alternative or additional social security system for inventing new schemes. That would be prohibitive in terms of cost and would undermine the United Kingdom approach to social security matters.
    I understand that the nationalists have a separatist agenda; they want every responsibility at Westminster to be transferred to Scotland. However, once again the
    1080
    performance of the Conservatives was quite remarkable. They are being quite irresponsible in suggesting changes without considering the costs. They do not want the social security system to be devolved to Scotland. Once again they are mischief making and, while they embrace the concept, they are still a long way from embracing any sensible detail about a way forward.
    Mr. Heald: All I would say in reply—
    It being one hour and forty minutes after the commencement of proceedings in Committee, THE CHAIRMAN, pursuant to the Order [13 January] and the Resolution [30 March], put the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
    Amendment negatived.
    Amendments made: No. 545, in page 71, line 30, leave out 'by local authorities'.
    No. 546, in page 71, line 31, after 'damages', insert
    'deductions from benefits for the purpose of meeting an individual's debts'.
    No. 547, in page 71, line 38, after 'services)', insert
    'section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 (provision of welfare services)'.
    No. 548, in page 71, line 41, leave out from '1995' to end of line 42.
    No. 549, in page 72, line 6, leave out from 'taxes' to end of line 7.
    No. 550, in page 72, line 15, leave out 'are enactments' and insert 'is'.—[Mr. McLeish.]
    Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Lord. A number of us would have liked to have contributed to the previous debate, but were clamped down by time.
    The Second Deputy Chairman: I am sure that, by now, the hon. Gentleman is well aware of how the Committee is being operated. It is up to hon. Members to study carefully the time allowed and to allocate their speaking time accordingly.
    Mr. Wallace: I beg to move amendment No. 412, in page 73, line 38, at end add—
    'Laws of procedure and evidence in disciplinary hearings.'.
    The Second Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 501, in page 73, line 42, leave out 'the Dentists Act 1984'.
    Mr. Wallace: Perhaps we shall be able to make up some time as the points that I wish to make in support of the amendments are very brief.
    Although regulation of the health professions would remain a reserved matter, under amendment No. 412, the laws of procedure and evidence in disciplinary hearings would be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.
    The reason for the amendment rests in a case decided by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council that was reported in 1993. I should add that the Privy Council committee included two Scottish Law Lords. A Glasgow general practitioner was charged with professional misconduct. Notwithstanding that the case was heard in Scotland and that all the events relating to it had taken place in Scotland, the Judicial Committee of the

    1081
    Privy Council held that Scots law was irrelevant to the evidence and procedure to be applied, and that the law of England had to apply to such disciplinary hearings.
    It seems perverse that the law of England should prevail in a United Kingdom body. As the Treaty of Union acknowledged, the laws of Scotland and England have equal status. If, as was decided in the case to which I referred, the law of England should apply, despite the evidence, despite the fact that all the events took place in Scotland and despite the fact that the hearing sat in Scotland, that seems a perverse outcome. It is not unreasonable that the Scottish Parliament should have at least the opportunity to regulate that.
    Amendment No. 501 would remove the Dentists Act 1984 from the interpretation of the health professions. As things stand, the General Dental Council would be subject to Westminster and not to the Scottish Parliament. When my hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) and I drew that point to the attention of representatives of the British Dental Association earlier this year, they said, "How interesting—no one ever asked us whether we wanted London to continue determining these matters. In fact, we see many advantages of Edinburgh doing so." At the very least, the Government owe us an explanation about what consultation took place with the British Dental Association in Scotland and other organisations. Has it just been assumed that everyone wanted the continuation of rule from England?
    Mr. McLeish: Amendment No. 412 seeks to except from the reservation of the regulation of the health professions the laws of procedure and evidence in disciplinary hearings of those professions, although, as drafted, it relates only to dentists' disciplinary hearings. Let me explain why that would not be desirable.
    The medical professional bodies have welcomed the reservation of the regulation of the health professions as a necessary way in which to maintain the current high standards in those professions. As part of their regulatory activities, the health professional bodies make their own rules relating to procedure and evidence at professional disciplinary hearings.
    Rules for medical disciplinary hearings are, except for nurses, approved by the Privy Council on a GB basis. In the case of the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1997, it is proposed that the function of the Lord Advocate of approving separate rules for Scotland should be transferred to Scottish Ministers in the executive devolution order in order to maintain the current position. As a consequence, I am not persuaded by the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument that there is a need to change current practice by excepting such matters from the reservation.
    The effect of amendment No. 501 would be to make dentists the only group of health care professionals whose qualifications, registration and standards of professional competence and conduct would be a matter for the Scottish Parliament. I cannot see that there is any argument for singling out dentists from this group.
    In some parts of Scotland, however, we have inherited difficulties of access to national health service dentistry and we are committed to tackling those, improving standards of oral health and restoring patient choice. Such
    1082
    matters do not fall within the scope of the Dentists Act. In view of my comments I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.
    Mr. Wallace: Before the Minister sits down, will he tell us first the policy consideration whereby the Government think it a good idea that when disciplinary events relate to Scotland and are dealt with in Scotland, the law of evidence and procedure should be English law? Secondly, what consultation was there with Scottish members of the British Dental Association before the Government decided not to devolve that particular responsibility?
    Mr. McLeish: The first point relates to the workability of the procedures. There seems to be a general consensus that the procedures are working well and should continue. It is not the purpose of the Bill to disrupt legislation and regulations that are working. I shall certainly inquire into the hon. and learned Gentleman's second point about representations and write to him.
    Mr. Wallace: I shall not press the amendment to a Division, but I do not accept the policy explanation provided by the Minister. Scots law and English law should he regarded as having equal status and there seems no earthly reason why English law should be allowed to prevail.
    Dr. Godman: On the equality of status, does the European Court of Justice grant equality of status to the two legal systems?
    Mr. Wallace: I have always assumed that it does. I see no reason to presume otherwise.
    The Minister's reply was disappointing. Perhaps he could have shown more imagination, but I am grateful to him for promising to let me know what consultation took place with the various professions in Scotland, particularly the dental profession, before the list was drawn up.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. McLeish: I beg to move amendment No. 551, in page 74, line 17, leave out 'and'.
    The Second Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: Government amendment No. 552.
    No. 483, in page 74, line 20, at end insert
    'and the subject matter of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998'.
    Government amendments Nos. 553 and 554.
    Mr. McLeish: Amendments Nos. 551 and 552 will insert an express reference to the subject matter of the National Minimum Wage Bill into the reservation of employment rights and duties and industrial relations. This is intended to put beyond doubt the fact that the matters covered by the Bill, once it is enacted—in particular, the setting of the national minimum wage—will be reserved. I trust that the House will agree that this technical amendment is desirable.

    1083
    Amendments Nos. 553 and 554 are technical amendments to the section of the employment head that deals with job search and support. We are concerned here with the interface between the activities of the Employment Service, which are reserved, and the activities of Scottish Ministers, Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and the Scottish local enterprise companies, which are to be devolved. As it stands, the provision does not deal with that interface in a satisfactory way.
    Amendment No. 553 would alter the wording of the reservation to ensure that it catches all the responsibilities of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment in relation to the assistance to disabled persons to find or train for work under the Disabled Persons Employment Act 1944, and those under the Employment and Training Act 1973 in relation to assisting people generally to obtain and retain work, or to obtain employees. It goes on to except from the reservation those aspects of the 1973 Act that relate to training for employment, reflecting the fact that the Enterprise Network in Scotland has major responsibilities in that area. Amendment No. 554 simply deletes that part of the exception that is redundant because of amendment No. 553.
    Although most training for employment in Scotland is carried out through the Enterprise Network, the activities of the Employment Service on training for employment in Scotland will also need to remain under the authority of the Secretary of State. I shall table an amendment to clause 52 on Report to provide that the powers under section 2 of the 1973 Act on training for employment can be exercised concurrently in Scotland by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. That is the right way in which to deal with that genuine problem of overlap.
    6.30 pm
    We are reviewing the provision further to establish whether any other adjustments are required to deal with other aspects of the work of Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise that overlap with the work of the Employment Service. We shall table any further amendments on Report.
    The amendments clarify which responsibilities of the Employment Service and the Enterprise Network in Scotland are devolved so that both bodies can continue to work effectively in Scotland after devolution. On that basis, I commend the amendments to the Committee.
    Mrs. Laing: I shall speak to amendment No. 483, which would except from reservation the subject matter of what will become the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. The amendment would give the Scottish Parliament the power to determine whether there should be a minimum wage in Scotland and the level at which it should be set. I have listened to the Minister's arguments, but I do not understand why he opposes the amendment. Like many of the Conservative amendments, it would add clarity and consistency to the Bill.
    It is consistent that the amendment would give the Scottish Parliament the power to decide issues that are particular to Scotland. Local wage rates are particular to
    1084
    the part of the country that they affect, because economic circumstances vary throughout the country, as do the cost of living, house prices and the availability of jobs in certain industries. It should be possible to vary the minimum wage to take those factors into account.
    Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Would the hon. Lady care to speculate on whether a minimum wage set by the Scottish Parliament would be higher or lower than that set by the United Kingdom Parliament?
    Mrs. Laing: It is not for me to speculate. If the Government gave us any idea of the likely rate of the minimum wage, perhaps we could have such a discussion, although this would not be the place for it. If the Government continue to hide their intentions from Parliament and the people, we cannot discuss the issue further.
    It would be consistent to give the Scottish Parliament power over minimum wage legislation for Scotland. The Government have already accepted that differential minimum wage rates may apply to the armed forces and those under 25. Why should they not apply in Scotland if the Scottish Parliament—elected by the Scottish people—wants that? It is not only inconsistent but blatantly unfair for the Government to say that the Scottish people can have higher taxes imposed on them than the rest of the country, but they cannot vary the rate of their minimum wage to take those higher taxes into account.
    Mr. McAllion: The hon. Lady has misunderstood the proposals on taxation in Scotland. The Scottish people would have to vote for higher taxes; they would not be imposed.
    Mrs. Laing: The hon. Gentleman has not understood that, by voting yes, yes in the referendum last September, the Scottish people have already voted for higher taxes—perhaps not in principle, but in practice. It does not matter how much Labour Members disagree with that; it is true. Let us wait and see, and come back to the issue in a few years. There will be higher taxes in Scotland. The Conservatives do not want extra tartan taxes imposed. We also do not think that a minimum wage is necessary.
    Mr. Russell Brown: Perhaps the hon. Lady should speak to other Conservative Members about the issue. We have been through the arguments. The national minimum wage will apply nationally, as the title says. It will be a national minimum wage for all—Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
    Mrs. Laing: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but if Scotland is a nation, it should have its own national minimum wage.
    Mr. Swayne: Is my hon. Friend aware that negotiations have already taken place with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities about a minimum wage?
    Mrs. Laing: I am indeed. As usual, my hon. Friend pre-empts me. I was just coming to that. We do not want extra tartan taxes and we do not think that a minimum wage is necessary. However, tartan taxes are even more unfair if there is no tartan minimum wage to help pay for them.

    1085
    There is no practical reason why the Scottish Parliament should not have power over the minimum wage, nor is there any reason in principle.
    Dr. Godman rose—
    Mrs. Laing: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman, because I am taking too much time. However, I should like to point out to him that, although I have always pronounced his constituency "Greenock", many of my friends from Kilmacolm, like my hon. Friends here, would say "Grinnock". I am sure that he understands that.
    The principle of a minimum wage in Scotland has already been conceded. We must assume that the Government have a political reason for opposing our amendment. Labour Members are ever mindful of the wishes of the Scottish Trades Union Congress. They talk about a national minimum wage and a national this, that and the next thing for the UK, but the STUC is specifically Scottish. It is not surprising that Labour Members are always mindful of the wishes of the STUC, because many of them are sponsored by its unions. We all know that the STUC wants a higher level of minimum wage than that which the Government are likely to set. As hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) reminded me earlier, COSLA has already done a deal for a minimum wage of £4 an hour for local authority employees. The Government clearly want to keep responsibility for minimum wage legislation at Westminster because they do not trust the Scottish Parliament.
    As we examine this Bill clause by clause, I begin to realise that some of our criticisms of the Government's inconsistency have been a little unjust. Even those who really believe in devolution must have realised that there is a warped logic and consistency in the apparently arbitrary choice of which matters are reserved and which are devolved. Responsibility for any controversial issues that could be embarrassing or cause internal strife in the Labour party—or worse, strife between the Labour party and its paymasters—will be kept at Westminster. [Laughter.] I do not know why the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) finds that so funny. It is certainly true; why else are Labour Members opposing the amendment? It is clear that the Government are afraid to leave to an Edinburgh Parliament any decision that might give the Labour party political trouble. I do not call that the responsible action of a responsible Government.
    The Government must be beginning to wonder why they introduced the Bill. They promised devolution before the election because they thought that it would win them votes from SNP supporters. Ironically, they did not even need the SNP's votes. The idea of Scottish home rule seemed good when it was pie in the sky, but now that the Government are forced to consider the detail of how it will work in practice, they are backing off at every turn. They are afraid to devolve sensitive issues to the Scottish Parliament because they do not trust the Scottish Parliament; they do not trust potential Members of the Scottish Parliament; they do not trust the Scottish people who will elect them. If the Government trust the Scots, they should accept the amendment and let the Scottish people and their elected representatives decide whether they want a minimum wage and at what level it should be set.
    Mr. Browne: I congratulate the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) on what I think was her maiden speech from the Dispatch Box, although it is a pity that it was the same as speeches her hon. Friends have already made. It certainly makes a change from blaming everything on the Minister without Portfolio, my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), to hear them trotting out that Labour Members do not trust the Scottish Parliament.
    Dr. Liam Fox: That is to come.
    Mr. Browne: Ah, that is to come.
    I want to lay out some reasons why a national minimum wage ought not to be devolved. I speak in favour of the Government amendments and oppose amendment No. 483, and I have three reasons for doing so. First, amendment No. 483 is an attempt—and not too subtle at that—to introduce by the back door regional variations in the national minimum wage. The Tories lost that argument at every stage of debate on the National Minimum Wage Bill.
    Incidentally, it was a welcome departure to hear a nationalist voice in the debate on the minimum wage. The absence of SNP Members from debates in which Labour Members and Liberal Democrats were delivering a national minimum wage was noted.
    Mr. Alasdair Morgan: I trust that the hon. Gentleman is going on to explain that 50 per cent. of Labour representation were not present for the final vote in the all-night sitting on the National Minimum Wage Bill.
    Mr. Browne: I was not intending to go into detail about who voted. I was merely pointing out the absence of a party that paints itself in a particular way to the electorate of Scotland. I have also noticed that its Members are absent except on the few occasions when they oppose what the Government are doing. Such occasions are so remarkably rare that one wonders why they are needed in Parliament at all.
    I am opposed to regional variations in the national minimum wage because, after 18 years of Tory government, the level and intensity of low pay is the same across every United Kingdom region. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Epping Forest said, there is no difference across the UK in the level and intensity of poverty arising from low wages. The percentage of workers affected may vary slightly from one region to another, but not greatly. The 1997 labour force survey shows, for example, that 9 per cent. of workers in the south-east of England are paid less than £3.20 an hour. In the east midlands, the figure is 10 per cent., in Strathclyde it is also 10 per cent., and in the rest of Scotland it is 9 per cent.
    The other measure of the level of intensity of low pay is the number of families receiving family credit. Figures published by the Department of Social Security in the family credit statistics quarterly inquiry of August 1997 support the view that workers' experiences of low pay are common throughout the UK. If there are variations, the evidence tends to suggest that they occur within and not between regions. For example, in my constituency, some workers in the town of Kilmarnock may earn slightly more doing the same jobs as workers from outlying

    1087
    villages. Geographical boundaries are totally arbitrary as economic measures; low pay affects workers in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in equal measure.
    Mrs. Laing: Although the hon. Gentleman's statistics are interesting, does he accept that house prices, rents and travel costs vary throughout the country?
    6.45 pm
    Mr. Browne: I accept that other economic measures may vary, but the level and intensity of low pay, which is what the national minimum wage is intended to attack, is the same throughout the country.
    The second reason why I oppose regional variation of low pay or a Scottish national minimum wage is that a UK national minimum wage with a single rate is simple and uncomplicated, and workers will more easily identify with it and more easily recognise their legal right. Enforcement will therefore be more straightforward, administration will be less bureaucratic, and the same job with the same employer will not attract different rates in different parts of the UK.
    The third reason why I oppose the Opposition's amendment—the real reason why it has been tabled—is that it is designed to delay the implementation of the national minimum wage in Scotland. The Government acted quickly to ensure the quick and effective implementation of the national minimum wage. Within 90 days of the election, the Low Pay Commission was set up to decide the right rate. It was instructed to take account of regional differences, and its members have journeyed across Britain to listen to evidence in order to ensure that that was so. They visited Scotland in October to take evidence. I hope that the commission will report soon and that we shall be able to get on with delivering the legislation.
    The Opposition amendment asks the people of Scotland to wait for the national minimum wage. It would delay implementation until the Scottish Parliament was up and running, while workers in the rest of Britain would see an end to poverty pay. I know that people in my constituency are in need of a national minimum wage now, and I refuse to ask them to wait. I refuse to let my constituency and other areas of Scotland become the sweatshop of Britain until the Scottish Parliament is ready to legislate for a Scottish minimum wage. If hon. Members believe in the value of appropriate pay, they should support the national minimum wage and not seek either to ignore it, as the SNP did, or delay it, as the Tory Opposition choose to do by tabling this back-door measure.
    Mr. Dominic Grieve: I speak in support of amendment No. 483.
    When we began discussing the principle of the Scotland Bill, the Secretary of State pointed out—indeed, he was commended for doing so—that the Government's approach would not be to devolve powers to Scotland but to give powers to it and merely reserve certain powers in Westminster. It was not a question of identifying the powers that should go; it was a question of identifying the powers that should remain. That was what distinguished the Bill from the previous attempt at a devolution Bill in the 1970s.
    1088
    Although Conservatives oppose the principle of the Bill, we have attempted to table constructive amendments where there is intellectual inconsistency. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) laughs, but I seem to remember receiving some slight commendation from the leader of her party, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), on the question of the relationship between the First Minister and the sovereign in a debate in which it was clear that Labour Members wholly misunderstood the principles of establishing separate sovereignty for the Scottish Parliament.
    Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman is right, but what puzzles us is his party's Jekyll and Hyde attitude to the Bill. Half the Tory amendments are attempts to take things away from the Scottish Parliament, while the other half are attempts to add to its powers. The Tory party should come clean and tell us whether it is trying to enhance the powers of the Scottish Parliament or to diminish them—or does it vary from day to day, speaker to speaker and amendment to amendment?
    Mr. Grieve: That can be easily answered. First, we have attempted—I accept that, in the process, we have used probing amendments—to draw the Minister and the Secretary of State out as to the rationale behind their decisions.
    Mr. Ancram: Unsuccessfully.
    Mr. Grieve: Yes, pretty unsuccessfully, most of the time, even when their approach has been irrational.
    Secondly, we have genuinely tried to improve the Bill. The fact that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) may disagree with some of our improvements is neither here nor there: they were genuine attempts to make the Bill more workable.
    The question about schedule 5 is: what is the rationale behind the reservations? The Government presented the national minimum wage to the House as a matter of social justice that would not impinge on economic policy. It is difficult to see why there should not be the opportunity to set a separate national minimum wage for Scotland. There is no economic rationale behind the Government's position. because the original legislation was not presented on such a basis; it was presented as a social matter.
    Social policy is an area in which many matters are to be devolved, so the question is simple: what is the justification for retaining power over the national minimum wage here? The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) made several valid points on policy issues and preference, but when they are married up with the way in which the Bill has been presented and the purpose behind it, his arguments do not add up or make sense.
    The Bill has been presented to the House as an issue of principle, and if the principle is to give the Scottish Parliament power over all such matters as need not essentially be reserved to the House of Commons, the national minimum wage does not meet that test.
    Mr. McAllion: Is the hon. Gentleman not making a false distinction between social and economic issues? Does he not agree that we cannot have social justice unless we first have economic justice?
    Mr. Grieve: That is an argument either for total independence or for having no devolution of any social legislation at all.

    1089
    I do not wish to take up more of the time of the Committee, so I simply ask the Minister to justify the policy, because the Bill seems wholly illogical. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) that the reserved areas are simply those matters over which the Government fear the Scottish Parliament and the embarrassment that it could cause. That is not a proper basis for devolution.
    Mr. Dalyell: Parliamentary banter apart, this is a delicate situation. None the less, my right hon. and hon. Friends may have an easy ride—if the minimum wage is set at a level agreeable not only to the Scottish Trades Union Congress but to the individual trade unions.
    My hon. Friend the Minister and I know that there are different views on the subject in the trade union movement. What will happen if the minimum wage is set rather lower than the expectations of many of the trade unions in Scotland? I ask a factual question: what has the STUC said to the Government on the subject? If I may personalise the question for a moment, what has Mr. Bill Spiers, in particular, said to the Government?
    Mr. McAllion: That is unfair; he is trying to become the general secretary.
    Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend says that that is an unfair question, but he will not deny that it is a highly relevant question.
    Reference was made earlier to the tight disciplinary machinery on the Government side of the House. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) and I were the only Labour Members present at the time, so the remark was not very apt. Those of us with different points of view are certainly entitled to ask what precisely has been said to Ministers on this delicate issue.
    Furthermore, what have the local authorities said on the subject? Many councillors who are well known to the Minister and to others of my hon. Friends feel embarrassed about what they may be forced to do about employment levels. Leaving the banter aside, this is a deadly serious subject, and I ask for a factual explanation of what exactly the trade union movement—not only the STUC but its constituent trade unions—has said.
    Mr. Alasdair Morgan: There may be various arguments as to why, after devolution, powers over the minimum wage should be reserved, but we all know why the Opposition tabled the amendment.
    I shall refute one of the arguments used by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne)—an argument that has been used not only in this debate but in others both today and previously. He said that the change proposed would be too complex and difficult for people in Scotland—and presumably therefore for people in England, too—to understand. That is lowering the argument to a ridiculous extent. I feel sure that the people of Scotland, and those in the rest of the United Kingdom, can cope with such differences.
    Indeed, there is an example in the Bill, which specifically exempts from the reservations under employment the Agricultural Wages (Scotland) Act 1949. We are therefore to assume that agricultural workers in England and Scotland can happily cope with the idea of
    1090
    different wage rates in different parts of the United Kingdom, whereas other workers cannot do the same with the minimum wage. That gives the lie to that argument against having differences between different parts of the United Kingdom.
    Dr. Godman: The hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Morgan) made a crack earlier about some of us having been absent for a vote on the national minimum wage. I think that I was one of the absentees, so may I explain that at about that time I was in Washington discussing the Northern Ireland peace process with certain Congressmen who are fervent supporters of Sinn Fein? I was trying to persuade them of the need to support the view of the British and Irish Governments on the peace process.
    As for agricultural workers in Scotland, the national minimum wage would be the base rate upon which they would negotiate with their employers.
    I shall explain why I sought to intervene on the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing); I acknowledge that she may not have had enough time to allow me to do so. I wanted to ask her whether, if we are fortunate enough in the next few weeks to debate the setting up of a Northern Ireland assembly—and God knows, we may not be so fortunate—she will argue for giving such an assembly the power to determine a national minimum wage for the six counties.
    I also ask the Opposition whether they would want a Northern Ireland assembly to preside over its own social security system. Both the national minimum wage and the social security system should be uniform throughout the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Heald: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Dr. Godman: The hon. Gentleman must sit down for a moment, but I promise to give way to him later.
    Such systems must be uniform throughout the whole of this multinational state. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) said, a uniform social security system is in the interests of those who, through no fault of their own, have to seek sustenance from the state. In the context of the national minimum wage, we must remember that there is migration from one nation to another within the so-called United Kingdom, and that those on low wages are often forced to migrate from one poorly paid job to another. The minimum wage must therefore be on a level.
    To my hon. and very good Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)—I would also like to remind the hon. Member for Epping Forest of this—I say that, although there may be disagreements between the Government and the STUC and the TUC about the level of the minimum wage, the STUC and the TUC are at one in their determination that there should be a uniform national minimum wage throughout the United Kingdom. That is what my hon. Friend must remember.
    I agree with the STUC on the level of the national minimum wage, and hence I disagree with my Front-Bench colleagues. The national minimum wage should be £4 an hour. I would like it to be £4.50 an hour, but that is being a little idealistic. If there are variations in the setting of a minimum wage, some employers will be unscrupulous enough to exploit those differences. They may set up satellites in the regions of England, Scotland or Wales and

    1091
    pay lousy wages and impose lousy terms and conditions of employment on employees. In an age when the trade unions, sadly, are somewhat weak, we must give statutory protection across this multinational state.
    Mr. Heald: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the social security system in Northern Ireland, to which he referred, is administered separately?
    7 pm
    Dr. Godman: It is, but it is identical to the system established by the Department of Social Security here in England. There is no variation whatever in the range of social security payments. I challenge the hon. Gentleman to provide an example of any social welfare payment where there is a difference.
    Mr. Eric Clarke: Is my hon. Friend aware that regional wages in Scotland are set by employers—for example, Dumfries and Galloway has the lowest average wages?
    Dr. Godman: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, but then he speaks with vast experience as an accomplished negotiator on behalf of the Scottish National Union of Mineworkers, and as a one-time member, I believe, of the STUC. Some of the wages paid in the constituency of the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale are scandalously low—the lowest in Scotland. However, we all have lousy, unscrupulous employers in our constituencies.
    Not long ago, an employer in the electronics industry in my constituency threatened his non-unionised work force with the sack if they had the temerity to speak to the local trades council or the local Member of Parliament about their lousy, rotten terms and conditions of employment. Where that employer and others like him are concerned, I look forward to the establishment of a national minimum wage and the enhancement of trade union recognition.
    Rights were destroyed by that odd-job lot, the Conservative party, when it was in power. We need good, solid trade unions in our democracy, and we need a uniform social security system. We need also a uniform national minimum wage in our multinational state.
    Mr. McAllion: There is something bizarre about the Conservative Opposition tabling an amendment which suggests that the national minimum wage should be devolved to the Scottish Parliament, since they opposed both the minimum wage and the Scottish Parliament. That has to be put on record. Nobody has been convinced by any of the Opposition arguments.
    The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) argued that the national minimum wage should vary across the country because housing costs and local taxes vary across the country. What she misunderstands is that the national minimum wage is not the recommended wage for all employers across the country—it is the absolute minimum wage for all employers across the country. With a strong and effective trade union movement, the problems she described can be dealt with by workers in any part of the country. The Tory party has never understood the working class, and I doubt if it ever will.
    1092
    The hon. Member for Epping Forest argued that there was no practical or principled reason why the national minimum wage should not be varied in different parts of the country. I remind her that, in the early days of the labour movement, wages and conditions for miners—my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke), a former miner, can confirm this—used to be set from pit to pit. It was the work of the NUM which helped to impose a national minimum wage and working conditions for miners. That is why the Labour Government, like the miners, will deliver a minimum wage for the working people of this country.
    Mr. McLeish: I welcome the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) to the Front Bench. Whether it is a fleeting visit will be decided by the powers that be on the Opposition Front Bench.
    To be harsh for a moment, the behaviour of the official Opposition is, quite frankly, irresponsible. The Conservative Opposition are playing politics with one of the most important manifesto commitments we have made—to improve the social and economic well-being of millions of workers in this country. It makes no sense for the Conservative Opposition to pick and choose the points on which they want to be politically expedient. We saw this last night in terms of guns; we have seen it today in terms of welfare, and now the minimum wage. It is clear that the national minimum wage should be just that—a single national minimum wage. That is essential to maintain the level playing field for business in the UK—one of our key objectives in framing the Bill.
    A single national minimum wage applying across the UK will ensure clarity, simplicity and ease of enforcement. It makes no difference where one lives or works in the UK—low pay is low pay. Putting a floor under pay to avoid unacceptably low levels is what the national minimum wage is about. That has not been recognised by the Conservative Opposition. I would like the hon. Member for Epping Forest to identify where her suggestion has come from. What discussions has she had with the trade unions or the business community?
    A decision has been taken by my right hon. and hon. Friends in government to promote a national minimum wage. That is an important priority, which is not helped by the Conservatives attempting to reduce the matter to a political knockabout at the expense of the provisions of the Bill. It is for this reason that the Bill reserves, among other things, employment rights and duties, and industrial relations.
    We are seeking a coherent set of policies which are consistent in economic terms throughout the country. Given the claims by the Opposition that they want to protect business interests in Scotland, I hope that they recognise that this is best achieved by the subject matter of the National Minimum Wage Bill being a reserved matter. [Interruption.] Once again, the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) makes flippant remarks from a sedentary position on a serious issue.
    Mr. Ancram: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. McLeish: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman is doing the honourable thing by coming to the Dispatch Box instead of mumbling from the Front Bench, as he normally does.
    Mr. Ancram: I just hope that, on this occasion, the Minister might answer the question put to him by the

    1093
    hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) about the representations the Minister has received from the STUC, and, in particular, from Bill Spiers.
    Mr. McLeish: If the right hon. Gentleman had been listening, he would have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) talking about much wider issues in relation to the trade union movement in Scotland. My hon. Friend acknowledges that this is an important issue, but the substance of the minimum wage is not a matter for debate this evening. We are talking about where the legislative competence will lie in relation to the minimum wage's legislation, level and implementation.
    We take this matter seriously. If there is a vote, I ask my hon. Friends to vote against the Opposition amendment. Millions of workers are looking for leadership. They will get none from the Conservatives, but they will get it from the Government.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendments made: No. 552, in page 74, line 18, at end insert
    'and
    () the National Minimum Wage Act 1998.'.
    No. 553, in page 74, leave out lines 34 to 36 and insert—
    'The subject-matter of—

    () the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944, and

    () the Employment and Training Act 1973, except so far as relating to training for employment'.

    No. 554, in page 74, leave out lines 38 and 39.—[Mr. McFall.]
    Dr. Fox: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 75, leave out lines 2 to 4.
    The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 5, in page 75, leave out lines 5 to 7.
    No. 6, in page 75, leave out lines 8 to 13.
    Dr. Fox: In any Bill dealing with devolved and reserved powers there will be accusations of inconsistency and situations in which the general case could be made either way. However, the example before us is one of cynical manipulation, not of inconsistency. Abortion is a sensitive subject, but it is hardly a nationalist totem. The debate is not about abortion policy itself, but is about who should have legislative responsibility.
    We cannot determine, should there be devolution to the Scottish Parliament, whether there will be a tightening or loosening of policy. That is not really the point. Hon. Members will have their personal views on the subject. I make no secret of my view: I would very much wish to see a substantial tightening of abortion policy, but that is not the point at issue. We are discussing who should have legislative responsibility.
    In the run-up to the debate, it was clear and interesting that the amendment had attracted a wide range of political support, not least of which was a statement made today,
    1094
    which I am sure hon. Members will have received, from the Catholic bishops of Scotland, who say:
    "It is with some concern that we note the reservation of certain powers to the Westminster Parliament, which, in keeping with the principle of subsidiarity, could be decided here in Scotland. Representatives from all the main political parties have pointed to the anomaly which transfers criminal justice and health legislation from London to Edinburgh, yet excludes abortion from the competence of the new Parliament.
    This position is rendered even less comprehensible when it is noted that the new Scottish Parliament will have powers to legislate on such issues as euthanasia and capital punishment. We express our support for the parliamentarians on all sides of the House of Commons who have brought forward amendments to the Scotland Bill to allow our new Parliament full and proper control over an issue which Scots have a right to decide for themselves.
    To those who talk of a cross-border 'traffic' in abortion, let it be noted that such 'traffic' already exists throughout Europe wherever neighbouring countries have different laws in any area, be it taxation, health or marriage."
    That view has come from other political parties. I note the support of the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish nationalists. The Liberal Democrats tabled amendments similar to those that are before the Committee.
    Dr. Godman: The hon. Gentleman talked about "traffic" throughout Europe. I hope that he will confirm that we have that traffic now within the United Kingdom, between Northern Ireland and England, Scotland and Wales.
    Dr. Fox: I shall refer to Northern Ireland, if the hon. Gentleman will bear with me for a few moments.
    It is worth considering precisely the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised, because it has been raised recently, by the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and in an exchange during Prime Minister's questions. On 29 January, the Under-Secretary said in response to a question:
    "As I have said, we have no agenda to extend the Abortion Act 1967 to Northern Ireland."
    The Committee will understand that the Act does not apply to Northern Ireland. The Minister continued:
    "If there is to be change, the preferable way for it to happen is in a devolved administration in Northern Ireland or, alternatively, by way of a private Member's Bill from a Northern Ireland Member."—[Official Report, Northern Ireland Grand Committee, 29 January 1998; c. 2.]
    As the Committee will probably be aware, I took the opportunity to ask the Prime Minister a question about these matters during Prime Minister's Question Time three weeks ago. I asked the right hon. Gentleman why there was a difference between Scotland and Northern Ireland on this issue, and why Northern Ireland should have power to make changes—the preferable way would be through a devolved assembly—but not Scotland. Why is the situation so different? The Prime Minister replied:
    "Scotland and Northern Ireland need not necessarily be treated in the same way across the various programmes for devolution. One of the points of devolution is that what happens in Northern Ireland or in Scotland is a matter of debate and can be decided in different ways."—[Official Report, 4 March 1998; Vol. 307, c. 1056.]
    The Prime Minister would do well to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the Government's position actually is before he is so rash as to answer a genuine question at Prime Minister's Question Time. However,

    1095
    the Government have an explanation of why we are treated to such an interpretation. The notes on clauses tell us that certain areas raise "major ethical issues" or
    "require expertise to be pooled"
    on a United Kingdom basis before regulations can be made where there should be reservation.
    Let us consider those two reasons. The first rests on "major ethical issues". Such issues are not to be determined by the Scottish Parliament, according to the notes on clauses, when it comes to this part of the Bill. That is presumably because the Scottish Parliament is incapable of deciding on major ethical issues, if we are to believe what we read. Yet the death penalty—a major ethical issue—can be decided in the Scottish Parliament. Euthanasia is another major ethical issue. It, too, can be decided in the Scottish Parliament. Bizarrely, human transplantation can also be decided in the Scottish Parliament but not xenotransplantation, which is transplantation from animals to humans.
    7.15 pm
    I do not know where the line is being drawn. What is a major ethical issue to the Government and what is not? I look forward to the Secretary of State defining exactly what the Government regard as a major ethical issue.
    The second part of the Government's explanation is matters
    "which require expertise to be pooled at a United Kingdom level"
    before we can make regulations. That seems to be nonsensical. There is no direct link between expertise and regulation. Regulation is how politicians respond to a perceived problem, albeit in the light of access to relevant expertise. The Scottish Parliament could have full access to United Kingdom expertise on any of the issues that we are considering, simply by calling the appropriate witnesses to it. It may well make the same regulations on the same advice, but it may not. To pretend that there is inextricable linkage is to make it nonsensical to have politicians. Why not elevate scientists to the status of gods and do exactly what they tell us?
    The reservation has the stamp of the Prime Minister upon it. The Prime Minister, having had one or two nasty brushes that his spin doctors had difficulty dealing with on the abortion issue, does not want the issue to be in the hands of the part of the party where he has least control. Anyone who witnessed the Scottish Labour party conference will understand what that means. The Prime Minister does not want troublemakers for him on this issue. That is the only reason why power is being reserved. The reservation smacks not of principle but of political manipulation, cynicism and cowardice.
    Mr. Roy: I shall speak against the amendment. I have a deep belief in the sanctity of life and therefore believe passionately in the right of life of the unborn child. That belief applies to the unborn child throughout the United Kingdom and not only in the towns and cities of Scotland.
    Abortion and its human consequences are not just matters of health to me and to the many whom I represent. Abortion is an ethical issue that is above the clinical terms that are used to end the life of any unborn child. It is an ethical issue that should be above political point scoring. My constituents know and understand my pro-life stance.
    1096
    In all conscience, I cannot support an amendment that pigeon-holes abortion and the right to life as purely health matters. Similarly, I cannot support an amendment that could lead to cross-border traffic in human sadness. The thought of seriously troubled women—[Interruption.]
    The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Hon. Members should not enter into loud conversations in the Chamber. Indeed, there should be no conversations when an hon. Member is addressing the Committee.
    Mr. Roy: Thank you, Mr. Martin.
    The thought of seriously troubled women booking into hotels, whether in Scotland or England, before an early-morning appointment at a termination clinic appals me. A more liberated pro-abortion area, whether it be in England or Scotland, would result in pitiful cross-border traffic of women who were desperately unhappy and desperately troubled.
    I ask Opposition Members not to treat abortion and its sad consequences as a political football. I ask them also to think and to separate out the tragic consequences of someone deeply troubled thinking about terminating the life of an unborn child. Let us deal with the problem of unwanted pregnancies as a real, human problem, one that is beyond the realms of a Scottish-English border. Women throughout the United Kingdom should be treated equally in a sympathetic manner.
    I ask hon. Members to reject this sad amendment.
    Mr. Wallace: I should like to make it clear to the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Roy) that I do not consider this a trivial issue or in any way a political football. It is a serious issue that the Committee should address. In no way would I trivialise the remarks that the hon. Gentleman has just made. Although I would not sign up to the pro-life camp, I believe that abortion should be very limited indeed in its extent, but this is not a debate on the merits or demerits of abortion. The question is whether the Scottish Parliament should deal with these serious and important issues father than the Westminster Parliament.
    Dr. Godman: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Roy) that this is a serious issue, and I regret the presentation made by the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), the Conservative party spokesman. In his speech, he made this a party political matter.
    Mr. Wallace: It is for people to argue their case as they see fit. I hope that in my remarks I shall not make it a partisan matter, as I know that strong views are held across the Chamber.
    Why is abortion a reserved matter? The health issue has been devolved to the Scottish Parliament. I accept that this is not purely a health issue. The Abortion Act 1967 was to address matters with regard to criminal law, and criminal law is substantially a devolved matter for the Scottish Parliament. If the two areas that relate to abortion—health and criminal law—are devolved, logic would suggest that the law of abortion should not be a reserved matter.
    What is the justification for abortion being a reserved matter? It cannot be because it is a moral or ethical issue, because the Scottish Parliament must be capable of

    1097
    grappling with moral and ethical issues as well as with social, economic, transport, health and education issues. We are in free vote territory, and people would expect that in the Scottish Parliament there would be free votes on matters of conscience, as happens in the House. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) said, euthanasia and capital punishment will be matters for the Scottish Parliament. They are treated seriously by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and are ethical issues.
    Surely the Government are not saying that the Scottish Parliament will not be competent to deal with an issue such as this. The theme that we ran during the referendum campaign, which the Government have mentioned when replying to debates in Committee, was, "Surely we can trust the Scottish Parliament." Indeed we can, and we can trust the parliamentarians who will be returned, and the people of Scotland who will return them. We can trust them to treat these issues with the seriousness that they deserve and to come to the right judgment based on a range of factors, one of which must be cross-border traffic. It is an important issue, and it would be for the Scottish Parliament to take it into account before it made any change—if it was ever minded to do so—to the current abortion law.
    Mr. McAllion: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that cross-border traffic already exists? There are cities in England, such as Liverpool, where it is difficult to get an abortion. People from Liverpool can come to Dundee for an abortion. Indeed, many people from Glasgow can come to Dundee to seek an abortion, and they book into hotels in the way described by my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Roy). The cross-border traffic argument has nothing to do with whether the Scottish Parliament should have responsibility for this area.
    Mr. Wallace: The hon. Gentleman raises a practical point. I am trying to anticipate what the arguments might be for not allowing abortion to be transferred to the Scottish Parliament. Those who argue for abortion to be reserved have said that there might be the problem of cross-border traffic.
    What about Northern Ireland? The hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw talked about the whole of the United Kingdom, but Northern Ireland has a different abortion law from the rest of the United Kingdom. The 1967 Act did not apply in Northern Ireland because abortion was devolved to the Stormont Parliament. Back in the 1920s, it was thought fit by those who framed the legislation to give the Stormont Parliament powers, so that abortion could be properly devolved to the Northern Ireland Parliament. We argue that a similar arrangement should be made for the Scottish Parliament in the 1990s.
    It is important to underline the fact that for a long time, the law on abortion has differed between Scotland and England. The notes on clauses say:
    "The 1967 Act introduces in effect a similar regime for the whole of Great Britain."
    I do not accept that that is necessarily the case.
    I am grateful for the insight of Sandy McCall Smith in his contributions in the "Encyclopaedia of Laws of Scotland", and of Kenneth Norrie, who was a lecturer in law at the university of Aberdeen. Kenneth Norrie wrote
    1098
    an article in the Criminal Law Review in 1985, headed "Abortion in Great Britain: One "Act, Two Laws". Before 1967, under Scots criminal law, based on common law, it was a crime to carry out an improper act calculated to destroy the foetus. It was clear from practice that the need to terminate a pregnancy in the interest of maternal health was not considered a criminal act under the law of Scotland. Admittedly, the law was not terribly clear. What was clear was that there were no Crown prosecutions when those terminations occurred. A study carried out in 1963—four years before the Act that was taken through the House by Lord Steel of Aikwood, as he is now—showed that 2 per cent. of women in a Scottish city had abortions performed under the health service.
    The 1967 Act did not interfere with the common law, and merely set out circumstances in which an abortion could lawfully be carried out. That meant that there were still differences between Scotland and England. It was still legally possible in Scotland, under common law, for a single medical opinion to permit an abortion to go ahead.
    Until the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 tidied up many of those things and gave clear dates beyond which abortions could not take place, the position in Scotland was different from England. In England and Wales, the relevant provisions of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, which was specifically continued by the Abortion Act 1967, made it a crime to abort a foetus that was capable of being born alive. Although it was never judicially determined in any firm way, the presumption was 28 weeks in England and Wales. However, in Scotland, where the 1929 Act did not apply, and had never applied, abortions could be legally carried out up to full term. Therefore, there have been quite significant anomalies between Scots law and English law for many years.
    Mr. Dalyell: Was the study to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred the Aberdeen study?
    Mr. Wallace: The information that I have, which comes from the "Encyclopaedia of Laws of Scotland" does not state which city, but from subsequent reports I am almost certain that it would have been the Aberdeen study.
    Mr. Dalyell: This is a matter of some consequence, because I was the parliamentary private secretary at the time to the Secretary of State for Social Services. The problem was very much to do with Professor Baird. The study was atypical not only of other Scottish cities but of the UK as a whole. What is the hon. and learned Gentleman trying to deduce from it?
    Mr. Wallace: The point that I was trying to make was that, before the 1967 Act, the law in Scotland was materially different from that in England, to the extent that in one Scottish city a significant number of women—I think it was 2 per cent.—had abortions under the health service. Although abortions should never have happened in those circumstances in England, the law of Scotland allowed them to be carried out.
    The point that I am making is that the laws of Scotland and England have not always been parallel on this issue, and the Scottish Parliament might decide in future that it wants to do something different, perhaps reflecting the

    1099
    views of our constituents in Scotland—it may be different on a particular issue and especially on an ethical issue, because the laws have different characteristics.
    Finally, the law in England is uncertain whether post-coital contraception is legal, but it is clear in Scotland, where the law requires proof of pregnancy, that it is not an illegal act. Therefore, even in a continuing matter of some legal debate, the law in Scotland is clear while in England it is not.
    The Government must explain why abortion should be a reserved matter. So far, we have had no explanation either in general debate or in the notes on clauses. The argument is not made out and I hope that the Government will be prepared to change their mind on it. If they do so, I am sure that the people of Scotland and those who represent them in the Scottish Parliament will treat the issue with the seriousness that it deserves, but come to their own decision after careful consideration of all the factors.
    7.30 pm
    Mrs. Fyfe: It will be no secret to most hon. Members that I view this subject from the perspective of the need to defend choice. I am glad that hon. Members take the issues seriously. So far, those who have spoken can never be in the position of a woman faced with a pregnancy that she does not want and regards as a disaster. However, whether or not we have been in such a position, we can try to use our imagination to realise the difficulties that such a woman might confront if she happens to live in one part or another of the United Kingdom where an abortion is difficult to obtain. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) is right that even within Scotland a woman can be forced to travel from her home town to somewhere with more liberal attitudes.
    I would fight to the end to prevent anyone from having an abortion against her will, as happens in some parts of the world, but I would also defend to the end a woman's right to have an abortion and to have it as easily in one part of the United Kingdom as another. We do not want to make it more difficult by having different rules in one part of the United Kingdom. We should be working towards a universal system whereby a woman can have an abortion with the least difficulty, wherever she happens to live.
    Reference has been made to Northern Ireland. I wonder whether any hon. Member is defending what happens in Northern Ireland. It is impossible to know how many hundreds of thousands of women are forced to make the journey to mainland Britain, concealing the fact that they are pregnant because of difficulties with their families, communities and jobs. The woman may have to make excuses for being away, and she will be alone, friendless and frightened in the alien environment of a clinic. Is that what hon. Members wish to defend?
    Dr. Fox: The hon. Lady asks who would defend the status quo in Northern Ireland. The answer to that is that the Government, whom she supports, defend that position. They have no plans to change that. As I said, the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said that the
    1100
    appropriate place for such a change to be made would be in a devolved assembly. Why the difference between Northern Ireland and Scotland?
    Mrs. Fyfe: I am coming to the point about Northern Ireland.
    The law should be uniform. I understand that Northern Ireland is coming from a position where there is no right to abortion. That is not because all Northern Ireland agrees that there should be no such right. Women who have to travel to mainland Britain think that they should have the right to obtain an abortion on their doorstep without the trauma of going to Liverpool or somewhere else in Britain.
    Ms Sandra Osborne: My hon. Friend might appreciate some useful information in relation to the number of women from Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland who have abortions in England. In 1996, 1,573 women from Northern Ireland and 4,894 from the Republic of Ireland had such abortions.
    Mrs. Fyfe: I thank my hon. Friend for those figures. I think that she will agree that that must be the minimum—
    Dr. Godman: A conservative figure.
    Mrs. Fyfe: A conservative estimate. Such women had to face extra difficulties when they were already in a position that none of us would want to face.
    It is not the case that all people in Northern Ireland do not want the right to abortion, but it is the case that all political leaders in Northern Ireland do not want it. They have that in common if nothing else.
    Dr. Lewis Moonie: And they are all men.
    Mrs. Fyfe: And they are all men. It has been years since there was a woman Member of Parliament for any part of Northern Ireland. Fortunately, the voice of the Northern Ireland Women's Coalition is being heard these days. I look forward to a more genuine opening up of the debate in Northern Ireland on the issue. Attitudes in the Republic have liberalised immensely in recent years. People have begun to realise that if a member of a particular Church or religious persuasion thinks that abortion is wrong, they are free never to have one, but they do not have the right to impose their views on people who disagree with them.
    I do not know what reasons Ministers will give for abortion being a reserved power. If they say that there should not be cross-border traffic, I most certainly agree. The House has debated the subject in the past, and it has agreed with a woman's right to choice. Hon. Members have defended a woman's right to choose, and I hope that tonight the Committee will not start to wreck that, by agreeing with the nonsense proposed by the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox).
    Mr. John Hayes: If the hon. Lady is so confident of her, in my view, rather unpalatable anti-life views, why is she not prepared to argue with those in Scotland in the devolved Scottish Parliament, which can then make a decision? It might well

    1101
    be that if that power were devolved to the Scottish Parliament, it would take a more liberal view. Why is she not confident that she can win the argument in Scotland with a devolved Scottish Parliament?
    Mrs. Fyfe: Those who defend choice are talking about some kind of quality of life. They recognise that women face real difficulties, which Conservative Members ignore in this debate. They treat the matter as a political football, simply to gain brownie points in some quarters. That is what this is all about. The sooner they stop wasting time on things that they are not serious about and get back to real issues, the better.
    Mr. Salmond: I do not doubt for a second the sincerity of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) on this matter, but she is wrong to argue the case in terms of her position on abortion one way or the other. We have heard two speeches from Labour Members from diametrically opposed positions on the moral question of abortion and two speeches thus far from Opposition Members, and I assume that among Opposition Members, too, there are diametrically opposed views on the matter.
    The hon. Member for Maryhill makes the strong point that the issue is best considered by women, and the chances are that in a Scottish Parliament, whatever else we may say about it, there will be substantially more women than there are here, despite the improvement. If that is the issue, I do not think that the hon. Lady's argument falls.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: That is not because of anything that the Opposition parties did to ensure selection of candidates.
    Mr. Salmond: I shall not respond to the hon. Gentleman. He is completely incapable of looking at any argument and coming to a serious conclusion. On this issue, above all, we should try to argue as a matter of principle and find a way through.
    There is no uniformity throughout the United Kingdom. The reason is well known: it was considered injudicious not to have abortion legislation devolved to Northern Ireland because, at various times, it was thought that the position in Northern Ireland, across its political representation, was different from that on the mainland of Great Britain. If that was the case, that devolution took place with the expectation that a different position might have arisen in Northern Ireland compared with Great Britain.
    In the case of the Scottish Parliament, it is impossible for any hon. Member to anticipate what the Scottish Parliament would do on the matter of abortion. There is nothing in the voting record of Scottish Members in this House on these matters, certainly during the past 20 years, that could lead hon. Members, whether it be the hon. Member for Maryhill or the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), to believe that the law would be liberalised or tightened.
    The hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) is absolutely correct: there has been no consistent abortion legislation within Great Britain. The relevant primary legislation in the 1920s was substantially different, as were the administration and interpretation of those Acts.
    Ms Osborne: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the 1967 Act is of major significance today in respect of
    1102
    the availability of abortions, and that any different legislation, whether in Scotland or in England, would inevitably lead to cross-border traffic, which would be greatly detrimental to the women concerned? This issue should be discussed on the basis not of personal pro or anti-abortion views but of how it will affect women.
    Mr. Salmond: I agree that that is the best way to approach it. However, if the hon. Lady reads the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland, she will see that that point was substantially dealt with. Even after the 1967 Act, the legislation was administered differently north and south of the border, and in various areas in Scotland and south of the border, because of the legal basis.
    Mr. Frank Doran: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Salmond: No, I wish to be brief. I would normally give way to the hon. Gentleman, but other hon. Members want to speak and time is severely limited. I do not wish to crowd anyone out of the debate.
    I agree with one point made by the Government: I regret that this matter has not come forward as a cross-party amendment. The conduct of this debate would have been far better had the amendment been sponsored by hon. Members from every political party, because I am sure that they share the point of view expressed in the amendment. I made it clear to the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland that I would support the Liberal Democrat amendment that was tabled at an early stage on this matter.
    I support absolutely the points made by the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland. However, I wish to add one further point that has not been mentioned, as some of the newer Members of the House might care to think about this. During the 11 years in which I have been a Member of the House, abortion has been raised as a serious debating issue three times. I am open to correction on that, but I remember them pretty well. The first time was through a private Member's Bill, which was knocked out not because the argument was lost but because of lack of time. The second time, the issue was allocated sufficient time, but in the late 1980s there was such a mass of confusion on the amendments that, even after a decision had been made, most hon. Members were not aware what it was or how it would be interpreted. The third time, the issue was latched on to another piece of legislation—no doubt on a similar ethical subject—and was not even treated as an issue in its own right.
    Whatever the moral arguments and the efforts that hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber put into these debates in trying to settle the position with their consciences, the issue would be treated in a better fashion by the Scottish Parliament than it has been in the past 11 years by the House. It is a question not of whether people were satisfied with the outcome but of whether people were satisfied that their position had been exercised in a debate that matched the importance of the issue. Whatever else we may say, none of us can put our hand on our heart and say that the House has dealt properly with one of the supreme moral and social issues of our time.

    1103
    I believe that a Scottish Parliament could deal with this matter better. I am not convinced that the legislation would be substantially changed. I am certain that, among other factors, a Scottish Parliament would bear in mind the experience of the legislation in England and Wales—it would be sensible and important to do so—but I am convinced that the Scottish Parliament is entitled to express what it believes is the conscience and view of the Scottish people on this supremely important topic.
    7.45 pm
    Mr. Ian Davidson: Part of this debate has shown the House of Commons at its best—it has been tackling a difficult issue in a responsible and almost non-partisan way. That is why the breathtaking cynicism with which the Conservative party has proposed the amendment has been made even worse. Its motivation is clearly an attempt to stir up religious feeling for party advantage.
    Mrs. Laing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Davidson: Let me finish my case, and then the hon. Lady can respond.
    I took the bother to check what the Glasgow Herald said when this subject was first raised. The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) must have been quite pleased with the heading of the article: "Tories put abortion on the agenda—Fox bids to exploit religious divisions". The caption under the picture was
    "Liam Fox: attempt to embarrass Labour".
    We all know the different agendas that are operating here. It is a question of what one says and how one tries to spin it. Although ostensibly it was a real issue about devolving power, in the mischievous way in which the Tories have operated on several occasions throughout the Bill's passage, it was simply an attempt to stir up religious feeling. How do I know that? The Herald's reporter had obviously had the benefit of an off-the-record briefing—some of it was clearly on the record—from the former Minister. The Herald said:
    "The Tories yesterday played the religion card in the devolution debate, when they unexpectedly called for abortion law to be handed down to the Scottish Parliament. The move was justified in terms of logic, but behind the scenes it was being openly admitted that this was an issue in the debate which could potentially embarrass those in the Labour Party, particularly in the West of Scotland, who are Catholic … Speaking after he dropped his bombshell Dr. Fox said: 'The reason that the Labour Party are having this as a reserved power is that it causes them internal division. It has nothing to do with the principle of devolution, but all to do with internal party convenience. We will put down an amendment and then we will see what the Government does with its majority."'
    The article goes on:
    "Dr. Fox's comments show that they believe that Labour, particularly in West Central Scotland, could be placed in a quandary if issues such as abortion are brought to the forefront of the debate."
    1104
    Many decent people who take different views on that matter deserve better, from a party that was the Government and that claims to be the leading Opposition party in Scotland and elsewhere in this country, than crude manipulation of strong religious feelings.
    Dr. Fox rose—
    Mr. Davidson: I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman so that he can withdraw those remarks.
    Dr. Fox: I absolutely refute the allegation that we are attempting to stir up religious feelings. We have raised this issue in a non-partisan way. I made my view on abortion—I said that I wanted the law tightened up—clear at the outset, lest I be accused of personal interest in this matter. I am appalled at how the hon. Gentleman has dragged the level of the debate down and at the fact that he has based his argument on the spin that the Glasgow Herald put on the matter. Although I do not withdraw a word of what was —quoted, I utterly reject the spin that the hon. Gentleman and the Herald put on it.
    Mr. Davidson: The Herald reporter said:
    "The move was justified in terms of logic, but behind the scenes it was being openly admitted that this was an issue in the debate which could potentially embarrass those in the Labour Party, particularly in the West of Scotland, who are Catholic."
    I suggest that the hon. Gentleman takes the matter to the Press Council so that it can pursue it with the Herald, because I have seen no retraction sought from or given by the Glasgow Herald. We are left with the strong feeling that this is a deliberate attempt to pander to the worst feelings that the Conservatives can find in the west of Scotland.
    I am happy to say that I believe that my party will not be divided on this matter. [Interruption.]
    The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Far too many hon. Members are speaking. The only person who should be speaking is the hon. Gentleman who is addressing the Committee.
    Mr. Davidson: Thank you, Mr. Martin.
    I understand why the Conservative party wants to shout me down—I have revealed the dishonesty of its approach to this matter, which goes beyond the manipulation that we have seen on other issues. That is part of the backwards and forwards of politics, but the crude attempt to manipulate religious feeling deserves to be flushed into the open and condemned.
    The Labour party is strongly behind what the Government are doing and will unanimously support them. We shall not be drawn into pandering to the worst in politics, which we have seen from the Conservatives.
    Mrs. Laing: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and hope that he agrees that Conservative Members are not being cynical about this sensitive and emotional issue. I agree with every word of the hon. Member for Glasgow,

    1105
    Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe), who spoke well and sensitively. We are discussing not the ethical side of abortion, but whether Labour Members—
    The First Deputy Chairman: Order. We cannot have a speech; this is an intervention. The hon. Lady has taken long enough.
    Mr. Davidson: I understand that the accusation will arouse strong feelings among those who were not party to the plot, but I remind hon. Members that
    "behind the scenes it was being openly admitted that this was an issue".
    The briefing clearly took place; the headline "Fox bids to exploit religious divisions" shows that there was clear and cynical manipulation, which should be condemned.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: The issue involves a matter of principle. We should not allow the exchanges that have just taken place to deflect us from serious consideration of whether a Scottish Parliament established by this House of Commons should have legislative competence to deal with a matter of such sensitivity, which raises ethical, religious and health issues.
    I have been a Member of Parliament since 1987, and the ethical element of abortion has given me more difficulty than any issue that has been put before me by my constituents, with the possible exception of capital punishment. The approaches of Members of Parliament to those two issues have much in common, because they involve significant issues of belief rather than political policy. If the Scottish Parliament is competent to determine whether capital punishment, which involves important ethical, religious and legal complications, may be available, what distinction in principle denies it the same legislative competence over abortion?
    Hon. Members who talked about the problem of cross-border traffic should consider that a murder committed on one side of the River Tweed might result in the death by hanging of the person convicted of it if the Scottish Parliament decided that there should be capital punishment for the crime of murder, whereas a murder committed on the other side of the Tweed might not have the same result. There is always such conflict when two legal jurisdictions share a border.
    If the Scottish Parliament is competent to deal with capital punishment, why is it thought to be incompetent to deal with abortion? The law in Scotland was different from the law of England for a long time, although I think that it is closer to it now. Mr. Alex Bourne, a well-known London gynaecologist, was prosecuted in 1938, but no similar prosecutions took place in Scotland. As the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said, cities such as Aberdeen had almost a tradition, if that description does not demean the subject, of performing therapeutic abortions, but hon. Members will have difficulty finding regular instances of prosecution in Scotland over allegations that the crime of abortion had been committed.
    The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe), whose views I respect and, indeed, share substantially, made the Northern Ireland case, but her remarks were an argument not for denying a Scottish Parliament legislative competence, but for changing the law in Northern Ireland.
    1106
    I shall campaign with her as long and as hard as she likes to change the law in Northern Ireland, because it should be changed.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Campbell: No. I want to conclude my remarks, because the Minister has yet to reply.
    The Scottish Parliament is perhaps better equipped to deal with such matters than this House. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) said that we have dealt with abortion three times in the past 10 years—by no means satisfactorily. No hon. Member left the debates satisfied that the issue had been properly determined.
    I understand that there is already a substantial body of opinion that the Scottish Parliament should take evidence before legislating. If ever an issue cried out for evidence to be taken before legislation is considered, it is surely an issue of such complication.
    Not only should abortion be part of the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament as a matter of principle, but the proposed workings of the Scottish Parliament make it much more likely that there would be an outcome more satisfactory than any in this House since I was elected in 1987.
    Mrs. Rosemary McKenna: Many hon. Members have different views from each other, and it is important to state that this is not a party matter. I should like to put on record my strong views against the taking of life in any form. I lobbied the House during the passage of the Abortion Bill, but I respect the views of others as I expect others to respect mine. I would not condemn any woman who had been forced to seek an abortion, and I applaud the work of those who support women who choose to have their child and who require such support. I should like the debate in the House of Commons on this issue to take place at such a level.
    The debate is not about a change in the law. As the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) said, such a debate should be informed, and should not take place in the sort of atmosphere that has been created in the Committee tonight. I should like to take the debate back to the issue of where decisions should be made, which is appropriate; it should not be turned into a party matter or involve abortion law. We must get back on track.
    Without commenting on whether abortion law in Scotland would be more rigid or more relaxed, it is important for me to state that I am deeply concerned that there would be cross-border traffic between Scotland and England, which I never want to happen and would certainly abhor. There is cross-border traffic in other parts of Europe and in other parts of this country, but that is no reason to introduce such bad practice into the difference between England and Scotland.
    The way in which the debate has been conducted has demeaned the House. The issue should be debated not during a discussion about the Scottish Parliament, but in a proper and informed manner. I regret very much that the amendment was tabled.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Donald Dewar): I have appreciated for many years the fact that

    1107
    abortion is a major ethical problem for the individual consciences of Members of this House or of any other legislature that may be asked to consider it. If anyone doubted that—I think that few could—the strength of feeling that has been evident during the past hour or so would certainly remind us that there is no doubt about the importance of the issue.
    I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) and a number of other hon. Members that no assumption should be made about what outcome a shift in jurisdiction to a Scottish Parliament might produce—it is impossible to read. I debate with the hon. Gentleman often, and on this occasion I agree with him. The differences might not be dramatic, but none of us knows that, and we must conduct the debate on the assumption that differences may emerge, perhaps not at one moment, but over time. There could be a divergence, and, in the special circumstances of this issue and this question, we must consider whether that is, on the whole, to be desired, or whether it would produce problems.
    We are considering legislative responsibility and where it should lie, not our personal views on abortion. I am one of the few hon. Members in the Chamber—my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is another—who can remember proceedings on the 1967 legislation. At the time, I was Member of Parliament for South Aberdeen. Even in Scotland, there are differences: as Member of Parliament for South Aberdeen I perhaps had an easier billet during the passage of the 1967 Act than Members of Parliament for other parts of Scotland. I appreciated the difficulties and the differences.
    The hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) is right to say that there were differences on various points in the common law and in the criminal law that lie alongside the statute. One of his closest political associates and friends was the promoter of the 1967 legislation. A decision was taken by the promoter, and ultimately by the House of Commons, that it was right to have a common statutory framework within which to consider the possibility of a termination. The time scales and the circumstances and conditions that had to be met before a termination could be carried out were put on a United Kingdom basis. That was a considered judgment. It does not mean that we cannot change the position now if we want, but the arguments that were put in 1967 had some force.
    8 pm
    I make that point without any feeling of crushing certainty. No one has bothered to refer to it, but at one stage in my parliamentary career 20 years ago I argued this case from another point of view. I realise that this is a matter of judgment and that we must consider the balance of the argument. The Government have come to the view that the decision taken in 1967 was right. The fact that, even now, there are differences in social approach and medical practice in different parts of the county is not a justification for having different criteria and different tests within the legislative framework.
    The 1996 statistics showed that in England 28 per cent. of terminations were in the private sector and purchased, whereas in Scotland the figure was 1 per cent. I strongly defend and welcome that difference between Scotland and
    1108
    England. The views and work of Professor Baird in Aberdeen in the 1950s and 1960s have also been mentioned.
    We should not easily countenance the prospect of different medical and social tests and a different statutory framework. On balance, I have concluded that it would be better to have one statutory framework. The Bill is based on a division of responsibility. Hon. Members have proposed amendments and have argued that there should be a change of mind on an individual matter. People are entitled to do that again on the abortion issue. We consider each case on its merits, and I take the view that on this matter it is better to have a national framework and a common approach.
    It is perfectly proper for hon. Members to say, "What about Northern Ireland?" I do not want to plunge into the sad history of events in Northern Ireland, but it is clear that we have made a distinction between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom for a multiplicity of pressing political and other reasons. There is no case for saying that, because Northern Ireland is different, we should countenance the possibility of differences between the law on abortion in England and Scotland.
    I rely on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Ms Osborne). There is considerable traffic out of the Irish Republic and out of Northern Ireland into the rest of the United Kingdom. In 1995, 1,548 came from Northern Ireland and 4,531 from the Irish Republic. That shows a steady pattern, and not a sudden variation at this later stage. We must consider the possibility of a significant variation in the law on abortion when making a judgment about where the jurisdiction should lie, because there would be a danger of significant cross-border traffic, which would not be sensible or satisfying.
    Dr. Fox: That is the root of the problem. Why does the Secretary of State find it unacceptable to have a variation in the criteria for abortion within Great Britain, but acceptable to devolve the power to determine the position on euthanasia in Scotland? What is the difference in principle between the two issues?
    Mr. Dewar: It is not a matter of principle, and it is not a matter that I was asked to address. Let me explain what I mean by that. It was suggested to me that I had no confidence in the competence of Members of the Scottish Parliament to make these decisions. I have every confidence in their competence: the question is whether they should have the competence. That is an important distinction. In the practical world of medicine and in the social world in which we live, there would be a strong likelihood of cross-border traffic, and we should not contemplate that.
    Mr. Salmond: Why should there be a difference between Northern Ireland, where people expect that difference to be acted on, and Scotland, where a substantial difference from the current position would not be expected, as the Secretary of State has conceded? I have heard the Secretary of State argue many cases, and I think that I know which are his and which are not. Did the initiative to take abortion out of the competence of the Scottish Parliament come from him and his Scottish Office Ministers?
    Mr. Dewar: I do not suppose that I will be able to convince the hon. Gentleman. There was considerable

    1109
    debate with colleagues in the Scottish Office, and we came to the decision that I am now defending. I ask him to accept that.
    The law in Northern Ireland is very different, because it is a special case. Abortions are illegal except when necessary to save the life of the mother, or when continuation of the pregnancy would involve risk of serious injury to her physical or mental health. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) said bluntly that she believes that that is not the right approach. That is a matter of dispute and debate, and there will be many different opinions in the House. The special social and political situation in Northern Ireland is not a reason for contemplating further differences in the United Kingdom in this sensitive area. That is the basis of my case.
    There will be Scottish representation at Westminster, and Scottish Members will have a free vote on any private Member's Bill. They will have their say, and their argument will no doubt be put fairly. There will be a provision for consultation between the Scottish Executive and the British Government. It will always be a free vote, but consultation will have a place and will be of some value.
    Mr. Wallace: The Secretary of State has placed much emphasis on the undesirability of cross-border traffic. We are all agreed that, if abortion were to be a devolved matter, we do not know whether it would lead to a relaxation or a tightening of the law, so we do not know which way the cross-border traffic would flow. Does he accept that that important factor, along with others, would be taken into consideration by Scottish parliamentarians? They should at least be given the opportunity to do that.
    Mr. Dewar: Yes, I agree that that factor should be taken into account, and I am sure that it would be. I have listened to the speeches of Conservative Members for eight long days. We have often been told that we must assume that certain possibilities might occur. If we are asked to change the jurisdiction, we must make such assumptions and reach a conclusion accordingly. I have reached a balanced conclusion, and I shall hold to it.
    The argument falls in favour of the position that we established in 1967, and which we have maintained ever since. Throughout the United Kingdom, common criteria and common conditions must be met before a termination can take place. I am genuinely sorry that the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), who feels strongly about this matter, took it upon himself to say during his speech—so there was no ambiguity—that the attitude of the Government was conditioned by cowardice. That was an unfortunate thing to say. The fact that the hon. Gentleman disagrees with me, and I with him, does not mean that I would ever accuse him of cowardice. I regard him as a somewhat impetuous figure, but certainly not as a coward.
    If that had not been the case, it might have occurred to the hon. Gentleman that the easy option was to go in the other direction. I do not suppose that he will stand up and tell me that, and I am not inviting him to do so; but, if we had gone in the other direction, we would have been under attack from the Liberal Democrats, the nationalists and the Tories. We took a principled stand, however. We argued it out. We considered that, in all the circumstances, my argument was right, and I invite the Committee to stand by me now.
    Dr. Fox: The Secretary of State's performance was one of the least effective defences that he has given in our
    1110
    debates on the Bill. We have asked for detailed reasons for the reservation; we have asked whether it involves a different ethical issue from those involving, for instance, euthanasia, but we have been given no answer. We have asked how Scotland differs from Northern Ireland in this respect, but again we have been given no answer.
    It being three hours and thirty minutes after the commencement of proceedings in Committee, THE CHAIRMAN, pursuant to the Order [13 January] and the Resolution [30 March], put the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
    Question put, That the amendment be made:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 160, Noes 278.

    Division No. 235]

    [8.10 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Forth, Rt Hon Eric

    Allan, Richard

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Amess, David

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

    Fox, Dr Liam

    Arbuthnot, James

    Fraser, Christopher

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

    Gale, Roger

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Garnier, Edward

    Baker, Norman

    George, Andrew (St Ives)

    Baldry, Tony

    Gibb, Nick

    Ballard, Mrs Jackie

    Gill, Christopher

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

    Body, Sir Richard

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Boswell, Tim

    Gorrie, Donald

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Gray, James

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

    Green, Damian

    Brady, Graham

    Greenway, John

    Brand, Dr Peter

    Grieve, Dominic

    Brazier, Julian

    Gummer, Rt Hon John

    Breed, Colin

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Harris, Dr Evan

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Harvey, Nick

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Hawkins, Nick

    Burnett, John

    Hayes, John

    Burns, Simon

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Butterfill, John

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

    Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

    Horam, John

    Canavan, Dennis

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Cash, William

    Hunter, Andrew

    Chidgey, David

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Chope, Christopher

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Clappison, James

    Johnson Smith,

    Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

    Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

    Keetch, Paul

    (Rushcliffe)

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

    Collins, Tim

    Key, Robert

    Colvin, Michael

    King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Cotter, Brian

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Cunningham, Ms Roseanna

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    (Perth)

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Curry, Rt Hon David

    Leigh, Edward

    Dafis, Cynog

    Letwin, Oliver

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

    Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

    Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Day, Stephen

    Livsey, Richard

    Duncan, Alan

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    Loughton, Tim

    Evans, Nigel

    Luff, Peter

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Faber, David

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Fabricant, Michael

    McFall, John

    Fallon, Michael

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Fearn, Ronnie

    MacKay, Andrew

    Flight, Howard

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    1111

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Spring, Richard

    McNamara, Kevin

    Stunell, Andrew

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Swayne, Desmond

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

    Swinney, John

    Moore, Michael

    Syms, Robert

    Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

    Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

    Moss, Malcolm

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Norman, Archie

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Oaten, Mark

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Ottaway, Richard

    Trend, Michael

    Page, Richard

    Tyler, Paul

    Paice, James

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Paterson, Owen

    Viggers, Peter

    Pickles, Eric

    Wallace, James

    Randall, John

    Walter, Robert

    Wardle, Charles

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Wells, Bowen

    Rendel, David

    Welsh, Andrew

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Whitney, Sir Raymond

    Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

    Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

    Ruffley, David

    Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

    St Aubyn, Nick

    Willis, Phil

    Salmond, Alex

    Yeo, Tim

    Sanders, Adrian

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

    Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

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

    Mr. Oliver Heald and Mr. Nigel Waterson.

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    NOES

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

    Clelland, David

    Ainger, Nick

    Clwyd, Ann

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Coaker, Vernon

    Alexander, Douglas

    Coleman, Iain

    Allen, Graham

    Colman, Tony

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Connarty, Michael

    Ashton, Joe

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Cooper, Yvette

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Banks, Tony

    Corston, Ms Jean

    Barnes, Harry

    Cousins, Jim

    Bayley, Hugh

    Cranston, Ross

    Beard, Nigel

    Crausby, David

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

    Cummings, John

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Dalyell, Tam

    Benton, Joe

    Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

    Betts, Clive

    Davidson, Ian

    Blackman, Liz

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Boateng, Paul

    Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Dawson, Hilton

    Brinton, Mrs Helen

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

    Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Dismore, Andrew

    Browne, Desmond

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Doran, Frank

    Byers, Stephen

    Drew, David

    Caborn, Richard

    Drown, Ms Julia

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Cann, Jamie

    Edwards, Huw

    Casale, Roger

    Efford, Clive

    Caton, Martin

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Etherington, Bill

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Fatchett, Derek

    Clapham, Michael

    Field, Rt Hon Frank

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Clark, Dr Lynda

    Fitzsimons, Lorna

    (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Flint, Caroline

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Flynn, Paul

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Forsythe, Clifford

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    1112

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    McDonnell, John

    Foulkes, George

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Fyfe, Maria

    McIsaac, Shona

    Galbraith, Sam

    McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

    Galloway, George

    McLeish, Henry

    Gardiner, Barry

    McNamara, Kevin

    George, Bruce (Walsall S)

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Gerrard, Neil

    McWalter, Tony

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Mallaber, Judy

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Goggins, Paul

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Gordon, Mrs Eileen

    Martlew, Eric

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Meale, Alan

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Michael, Alun

    Grogan, John

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    Gunnell, John

    Mitchell, Austin

    Hain, Peter

    Moffatt, Laura

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Moran, Ms Margaret

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

    Hanson, David

    Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

    Harris, Dr Evan

    Morley, Elliot

    Healey, John

    Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Mudie, George

    Heppell, John

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Hesford, Stephen

    Norris, Dan

    Hill, Keith

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Hodge, Ms Margaret

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Hoey, Kate

    Osborne, Ms Sandra

    Home Robertson, John

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Hood, Jimmy

    Pearson, Ian

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Pendry, Tom

    Hope, Phil

    Pertiam, Ms Linda

    Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

    Pike, Peter L

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Pond, Chris

    Howells, Dr Kim

    Pope, Greg

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Pound, Stephen

    Hurst, Alan

    Powell, Sir Raymond

    Hutton, John

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Purchase, Ken

    Jamieson, David

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Jenkins, Brian

    Radice, Giles

    Johnson, Miss Melanie

    Rapson, Syd

    (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Rogers, Allan

    Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Roy, Frank

    Jowell, Ms Tessa

    Ruane, Chris

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Ruddock, Ms Joan

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Ryan, Ms Joan

    Kelly, Ms Ruth

    Salter, Martin

    Khabra, Piara S

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Kidney, David

    Sawford, Phil

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Shaw, Jonathan

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

    Sheerman, Barry

    Kingham, Ms Tess

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Skinner, Dennis

    Lawrence, Ms Jackie

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    Lepper, David

    Smith, Miss Geraldine

    Leslie, Christopher

    (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

    Levitt, Tom

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Linton, Martin

    Soley, Clive

    Love, Andrew

    Southworth, Ms Helen

    McAllion, John

    Squire, Ms Rachel

    McCabe, Steve

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    McCafferty, Ms Chris

    Steinberg, Gerry

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Stevenson, George

    Macdonald, Calum

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    1113

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Straw, Rt Hon Jack

    Watts, David

    Stringer, Graham

    White, Brian

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

    (Swansea W)

    (Dewsbury)

    Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Winnick, David

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Thomas, Gareth (Ctwyd W)

    Wise, Audrey

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    Woolas, Phil

    Timms, Stephen

    Worthington, Tony

    Todd, Mark

    Wray, James

    Touhig, Don

    Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

    Trickett, Jon

    Wyatt, Derek

    Truswell, Paul

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Mr. Jim Dowd and Jane Kennedy.

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Amendments made: No. 555, in page 75, line 17, after '1968', insert
    ', the Marketing Authorisations for Veterinary Medicinal Products Regulations 1994'.
    No. 556, in page 75, line 21, leave out 'medicines' and insert
    'medical supplies or medicinal products which (in either case) are'.
    No. 557, in page 75, line 23, at end insert—
    'Interpretation
    "Medical supplies" has the same meaning as in section 49(3) of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978.
    "Medicinal products" has the same meaning as in section 130(1) of the Medicines Act 1968.'.—[Mr. McFall.]
    Mr. Gorrie: I beg to move amendment No. 19, in page 76, leave out lines 14 to 20.
    The issue is straightforward, so I can deal with it rapidly. The amendment would give the Scottish Parliament the power to determine the remuneration of judges of the Court of Session, sheriffs, members of the Lands Tribunal for Scotland and the chairman of the Scottish Land Court.
    We think that the proposal to reserve this matter is the result of judicial trade unionism. [Interruption.] There are nods in knowing quarters. Scottish judges are anxious to ensure that their pay is related to the pay of English judges and presumably they are afraid that, at some time in the future, the Scottish Parliament might reduce their wages. That Parliament will have to pay for the judges, and it is reasonable for it to determine their remuneration. If it is unfair, I am sure that the judges have ways of getting back at the Parliament. I see no reason why the Scottish Parliament should not control this matter. The issue is simple and straightforward, however, and, having succeeded with hypnotism, I hope that we can succeed on judges' pay.
    Mr. McLeish: Unfortunately, I am unable to accede to the hon. Gentleman's request. The determination of judicial salaries is a reserved matter because the Government consider it right for there to be comparability of salaries for the judiciary throughout the United Kingdom. The review body on senior salaries will continue to report to the United Kingdom Prime Minister
    1114
    on matters relating to judicial salaries and to other pay groups in the public service. The review body's independence and integrity is well established and it should be allowed to continue its work. I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
    Mr. Gorrie: I am disappointed, but we are more interested in voting on one or two later issues. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Ms Roseanna Cunningham: I beg to move amendment No. 347, in page 76, leave out lines 21 to 39.
    The First Deputy ChairmanWith this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 94, in page 76, line 28, at end insert—
    'Imposing a duty on the Parliament to adhere to equal opportunities principles in its policies and procedures,'.
    Government amendment No. 558.
    Amendment No. 348, in page 76, line 32, leave out
    'need to meet the equal opportunity requirements'
    and insert
    'principle that there should be equality of opportunity for all people.'.
    Amendment No. 349, in page 76, line 35, after 'sex', insert sexual orientation'.
    Amendment No. 350, in page 76, line 35, after 'sex', insert gender identity'.
    Government amendment No. 559.
    New clause 7—Equal opportunities in conduct of business—
    '.—The Parliament shall make appropriate arrangements with a view to securing that its business is conducted with due regard to the principle that there should be equality of opportunity for all people.'.
    New clause 8—Principle of equality of opportunity—
    '.—(1) The Parliament shall make appropriate arrangements with a view to securing that its functions are exercised with due regard to the principle that there should be equality of opportunity for all people.
    (2) After each financial year of the Parliament the Parliament shall publish a report containing—

    (a) a statement of the arrangements made in pursuance of subsection (1) which had effect during the financial year in question and

    (b) an assessment of how effective those arrangements were in promoting equality of opportunity.'.

    Ms Cunningham: Amendment No. 347 and amendments Nos. 348 to 350 are tabled in my name and in the names of my hon. Friends. The hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Chisholm) are also included. That means that the amendments are cross-party amendments, and I hope that the Government will consider carefully what I have to say.
    I welcome Government amendment No. 558 because it goes some way towards what is intended in amendment No. 348, by amplifying the exceptions to the reserved powers. Although it does not go as far as I would wish, it empowers the Scottish Parliament to encourage—although not regulate—equal opportunities in our country. Government amendment No. 559 covers the subject matter of our amendment No. 349 by specifically

    1115
    including sexual orientation within the definition of areas of equal opportunity, the observance of which the Scottish Parliament will be empowered to encourage. It also specifies age, language and social origin, which are equally welcome. I appreciate that the Government have come some way towards what I should like to see.
    Scotland's gay community will welcome the Government's flexibility. The recognition of the specific discrimination that is faced by gay men and gay women in Scotland is heartening not just for them but for people throughout the United Kingdom. Equal opportunity and anti-discrimination regulations are a fast developing area. There is likely to be increasing pressure to improve legislation in that area and to widen its remit. Unfortunately, it seems that the Scottish Parliament will be unable to respond to those pressures to improve regulations against discrimination.
    Amendment No. 347 is clearly substantive because it would result in the devolution to the Scottish Parliament of all equal opportunities legislation. The power would enable the elected representatives of Scotland's people to take the initiative in promoting equality in our country. It could mean more sensitive race relations legislation for Scotland and the stronger promotion of the rights of women and minority groups in our society.
    I think that most people accept that although at one level problems of discrimination are the same for people throughout the world, particular circumstances in different countries make the needs of legislation different. The amendment would allow the Scottish Parliament to take steps forward. Indeed, the European convention on human rights would allow us only to take steps forward. I envisage a Scottish Parliament that would perhaps be more ground breaking than Westminster has been in the past. I hope that we can look forward to that, and I certainly do not think that any minority group in Scotland should feel threatened by the powers that would rest in the hands of Members of the Scottish Parliament. As the legislation stands, that Parliament will have the power only to encourage the observance of the existing equal opportunities legislation and can only impose duties on public bodies to observe that legislation It is not clear what sanctions there would be if those duties were, in any way, not carried out.
    Mrs. McKenna: Does the hon. Lady agree that the way to change people's opinions is to win hearts and minds on this issue? Much of the work by Labour local authorities since 1984 has been about that: persuading people and creating the right climate. That is what brought about a cultural shift in attitude in Scotland. Will not the rights given to the Parliament do more than legislation?
    Ms Cunningham: I certainly agree that one has to change the hearts and minds of people; I do not think that any of us would disagree with that. We will not effect the substantial and long-term change which, I presume, most of us would like without real social change within the population, but we need the legislative back-up to reinforce that—otherwise we would not have existing anti-discrimination legislation. One tends to go with the other. Legislation without the changes in society will perhaps be difficult to enforce, but simply changing social thinking without legislation is not enough either.
    1116
    I agree with the hon. Lady at one level, but we can take it further forward by legislation and I would have hoped that we could have done so in the Parliament. I would certainly have wished to have been able to argue for that in the Parliament. Specific issues with which we have to deal in Scotland would be helped by our being able to address them in a specifically Scottish context.
    8.30 pm
    Amendment No. 348 would move the situation forward at least some way. The Parliament would at least be given the power to promote equality of opportunity in Scotland's public bodies by imposing certain duties on those bodies to secure equal opportunities. The amendment has been prompted by a question mark over the relative powers given to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh assembly, and the belief among several commentators that Scotland will have weaker powers to promote equal opportunities than Wales.
    Mr. Dalyell: This is not a hostile intervention, but my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) and I are a bit curious to know what examples the hon. Lady has in mind. It would clarify her argument. She said that there were things that could be done better. There may be, but what examples does she have in mind?
    Ms Cunningham: The composition of racial minorities in Scotland is different from that in England. [Interruption.] Hon. Members buzz about on the Back Benches, but there has been much controversy over attitudes towards English people in Scotland. There is little point in trying in Westminster to deal with the problems that arise in Scotland because it will not be seen to be something that can properly be dealt with in Westminster. A Scottish Parliament would be better placed to tackle the issue.
    Mr. Salmond: Am I right in remembering that my hon. Friend is the only hon. Member who has taken legal action against an anti-English group in Scotland?
    Ms Cunningham: I cannot speak for anyone else, but it is true that I did so. Each country has different demographics and Scotland has different demographics from other parts of the UK. Let us accept that fact and, in doing so, go on to try to deal with it in the way that seems best for that country. We are not going to get that opportunity, which is sad.
    I should like to deal with the relative difference between what is being proposed for Scotland and what appears to have been proposed for Wales. The commentators who have examined the matter may have got it wrong, but a different wording is used and I should like to hear the Minister's response on the issue.
    On the face of it, it looks as if the Scottish Parliament will have weaker powers than the Welsh assembly. A duty has been imposed on the Welsh assembly to ensure that its functions—
    Mr. Browne: Will the hon. Lady give way?
    Ms Cunningham: Will the hon. Gentleman let me finish this point because it concerns the purpose of the amendment?

    1117
    The Government of Wales Bill says that functions should be exercised with due regard to the
    "principle that there should be equality of opportunity for all people."
    Most commentators regard the equal opportunities requirements that are defined in the Scotland Bill as weaker than the
    "equality of opportunity for all people"
    requirement in the Government of Wales Bill.
    I should like to hear the Minister's response to that. It may be difficult for him because he, like me, may not be familiar with the exact wording of the Government of Wales Bill, but our amendment would include in the Scotland Bill the same wording as appears in the Government of Wales Bill. It is perceived that that would give the Scottish Parliament a much wider remit. Present equal opportunity requirements cover only race, gender and, to some extent, disability, whereas
    "equality of opportunity for all people"
    would cover a much wider range—for example, sexual orientation and gender politics, so I am keen for the Minister to indicate some of the thinking behind the relative powers granted to Scotland and Wales.
    Amendments Nos. 349 and 350 simply amend by addition the existing exceptions. I have largely dealt with amendment No. 349, but I press the Minister on amendment No. 350, which would include gender identity within the equal opportunity definitions.
    Mr. Browne: I am obliged to the hon. Lady for giving way; I realise that time is short. Early in her speech, she referred to the European convention on human rights—a reference that has been troubling me ever since. Has she taken into account the effect of the incorporation of the convention into UK law and the requirement that that will make of the Scottish Parliament to legislate in a manner that is consistent with the convention?
    Ms Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening to what I said. I said that incorporating the convention would allow us to take steps forward. We could improve on that. We could do better than is suggested by that. We will not be able to do worse, so no one need be concerned. Concern seems to have been expressed in several debates that, if Scotland gains the ability to legislate on certain matters, it will end up being far more restrictive and more discriminatory or anti-freedom. In this case, the European convention would absolutely ensure the benchmark, which I think could be improved on. Nothing could stop a Scottish Parliament going further and doing better than that. It will not be able to do worse. That was the point that I made earlier.
    The amendments would include in the Bill explicit references to sexual orientation and gender identity. Many people may think that they are subsumed, but explicit references send out a fairly vital signal that Parliament is accepting the reality of discrimination in those areas. However, the Government have not accepted amendment No. 350, although, as I have said, they have come part of the way forward in relation to amendments Nos. 348 and 349.
    I am aware of the decision of the European Court of Justice in 1996 in the case of P. v. S. and Cornwall county council. I hope that members of the faculty who may
    1118
    know much more about that case than me, do not immediately leap to their feet to talk and ask about it, but, as I understand it, that case ruled that discrimination against a transsexual person on account of his or her transgender status is equivalent to sex discrimination that is covered by the equal treatment directive. I know that United Kingdom law on sex discrimination would still need to be updated to reflect that decision of the European Court of Justice.
    I should like to hear the Minister's comments because I accept that it is possible that the Government will not accept my amendment No. 350 until they have addressed the issue of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, which now appears to be lacking somewhat given that European decision. I look forward to a positive comment from the Minister to the effect that that is what the Government intend to do.
    Mrs. Fyfe: As the equal treatment directive deals with regulation of the labour market in Europe, I wonder whether the hon. Lady agrees that that alone would not answer the case because there are other forms of discrimination, not just in jobs.
    Ms Cunningham: The hon. Lady is right. That is discrimination in a particular area, but it points in the direction in which we should be going. I hope that the Minister will comment on that. It may be that the Government intend to look at the Sex Discrimination Act anyway.
    The group contains a number of other amendments and new clauses. The SNP is broadly in favour of the amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) and her colleagues. I urge the Government to consider carefully the concerns that will no doubt be expressed by that hon. Lady.
    It has always been my belief that a Scottish Parliament presents us with an opportunity to take radical steps forward in Scottish society and to take us into the 21st century with laws that ensure non-discrimination on the basis of sex, age, religion, race or sexual orientation. Unfortunately, we are not presented with that opportunity, and I should like to hear the Government respond positively to all these amendments. In any case, I have every confidence that, within the next 15 years, we will get the Parliament necessary to make the change.
    Mrs. Fyfe: I congratulate the Government and welcome the fact that they have tabled amendment No. 559, which would include sexual orientation in the interpretation of equal opportunities set down on page 76 of the Bill. It is an important move to recognise that particular form of discrimination, which was alluded to by the hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham). The Government are making progress on that front in Northern Ireland and UK-wide. Clearly, we are going to see change that was resisted by the previous Government during their term in office.
    New clauses 7 and 8 were tabled because I believe that it would be good to have something like them in the Bill. New clause 7 would ensure that the Scottish Parliament made arrangements to conduct all its business with due regard to equal opportunities "for all people". The Bill requires the Scottish Parliament only to encourage the observance of equal opportunity requirements listed on

    1119
    page 76 and imposes a duty on public bodies. As the Bill stands, it could do that, while being remiss in its own conduct.
    New clause 8 refers to the Scottish Parliament's functions and calls for an annual report showing what has been done and an assessment of the effectiveness of any action. It will not have escaped the notice of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench that the words in new clause 8 are the same as those in clause 113 of the Welsh Bill.
    I want to make it clear that I am not calling for Scotland to have totally separate law-making powers on equal opportunities. That should be a reserved matter. However, I want the Parliament to have full control over what it does within its devolved powers, so that if it is so minded, it can make advances in the practice of equal opportunities. Parliaments can list all sorts of ways in which prejudice should not be allowed and where it should be confronted and made illegal, but the inculcation of good practice is essential, as is providing a good example.
    Equal opportunity is a fundamental principle that the Scottish Parliament will want to observe. I wonder whether there can really be any objection to making that explicit in the Scotland Bill.
    I do not want to speak for long because I know that other hon. Members want to participate, but I have heard one objection. The suggestion is that there is no need to put anything in the Bill because the fact that it is a Parliament means that it will be able to decide what it wants to do. We have sat here for many an hour over past weeks telling the Scottish Parliament what it will and will not do. We have even found time to discuss whether it will deal with hypnotism. I hope that my hon. Friends can look at this before the Bill goes to Her Majesty for approval.
    The Scotland Bill is an excellent Bill—a first-class piece of work in many ways. However, I should like to correct this minor flaw.
    8.45 pm
    Mr. Bernard Jenkin: We have heard from the hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham) that she does not believe that the Bill as drafted goes far enough with regard to anti- discrimination invocations on the Scottish Parliament. She believes that the Scottish Parliament would be able to improve on that. Amendment No. 347 would delete the reservation altogether and leave the matter entirely up to the Scottish Parliament.
    The hon. Member for Perth is right to dismiss the intervention of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) on the European convention on human rights. That convention deals not only with anti-discrimination but with a whole range of issues, some of which are among the reservations in the Bill and some of which are not. For example, the European convention deals extensively with the rights of prisoners and that is not reserved. The Government have not been advancing that case in talking about the issues that are to be reserved.
    Mr. Browne: The point that the hon. Gentleman may wish to dismiss, given the advice that he has been giving other hon. Members, is that, in terms of the incorporation of the European convention on human rights, there will
    1120
    be a requirement on the Scottish Parliament to legislate in a manner consistent with that convention. Does the hon. Gentleman agree or disagree with that?
    Mr. Jenkin: I agree entirely with that. The hon. Gentleman seemed to be implying that, because the European Commission of Human Rights is an international obligation, that is a justification—
    Mr. Browne: Convention, not commission.
    Mr. Jenkin: I believe that the body is called the Commission of Human Rights: the convention is the document. Just because something is an international obligation, it does not necessarily have to be reserved.
    Mr. Browne rose—
    Mr. Jenkin: I have dealt with the hon. Gentleman's point. It is a minor point and I do not want to dwell on it for too long. I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman again because we do not have a great deal of time for this debate.
    The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) was once again, ironically, in anti-devolution mode. She was justifying the reservations in the Bill when there are no practical reasons why this matter should not be devolved.
    We have here yet another example of a contentious issue—it is particularly contentious among Labour Members—over which the Government, for political convenience, wish to keep control at Westminster. The devolution of the issue to the Scottish Parliament would inevitably lead to embarrassing differences between the Scottish and Westminster Parliaments, even if the Labour party was in a majority in both places.
    It is the Conservative party's policy to respect all people regardless of their race, colour, creed, sex, religion and so on and to respect all people primarily as individuals.
    Mr. McAllion: If the hon. Gentleman really believes that it is Conservative party policy to be completely non-discriminatory against people whatever their ethnic origin, race or sex, why did Margaret Thatcher, when she was Prime Minister, make that speech about our native culture being swamped by immigrants to this country?
    Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman makes an entirely irrelevant point. I will not be sidetracked into a debate on a speech made almost 20 years ago by a former Conservative party leader, who did a great deal for this country.
    We respect people primarily as individuals. All people should be accorded their liberties and rights, regardless of their circumstances. The guiding principle of an atmosphere of anti-discrimination is tolerance. Conservatives are in the vanguard in changing attitudes towards, for example, those with a different sexual orientation. Although some people argue that society would not develop tolerance towards minority groups without anti-discrimination legislation, many people—not only Conservatives—remain inherently suspicious of such an approach. It could be argued equally well that the

    1121
    acceptability of anti-discrimination legislation simply reflects the fact that attitudes in society are changing already.
    Mrs. Fyfe: The hon. Gentleman must have a very short memory. Most hon. Members recall section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988, and how disgracefully the Government behaved on that occasion.
    Mr. Jenkin: That section of that Act was to prevent local authorities galloping off with ratepayers' money, spending it on priorities that were not the direct priorities of local authorities. If one asked an average taxpayer whether he or she wanted money spent on those activities, they would express a very clear view.
    Mrs. Fyfe: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Jenkin: I will not give way to the hon. Lady again. It is so easy to antagonise her that I rather regret having given way to her initially.
    The imposition of draconian anti-discrimination laws has to be handled with great care, because it is all too easy to substitute one type of intolerance of minorities for another—such as intolerance of those who do not support imposition of specific anti-discrimination laws. The hon. Member for Maryhill has just demonstrated that.
    Article 19 of the European Community treaty that essentially deals with the principle of equal pay for men and women has given rise to the equal treatment directive—which has allowed the European Court of Justice to develop the highly dubious doctrine of "indirect discrimination" whereby it is judged illegal to treat part-time workers differently from full-time workers simply because a majority of part-timers tend to be women and a majority of full-timers tend to be men.
    The laws of a tolerant society should, as far as possible, seek to protect freedoms rather than to impose obligations that might seem arbitrary and unjust in their application. For that reason, I support equality of the age of consent at 16, for example, for all people.
    Ms Osborne: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that all anti-discrimination legislation should be abolished?
    Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Member for Ayr (Ms Osborne) should listen more carefully to what I am saying.
    We remain inherently suspicious of laws that corral individuals and groups of individuals into legally defined categories, to be treated differently, and therefore to be regarded differently. Ultimately, so-called anti-discrimination legislation may do the opposite, so that people are treated as part of a category, rather than being accorded the respect that they deserve as individuals.
    Surely everyone should agree—this may answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Ayr—that the perfect society would be one in which such legislation is superfluous, and in which all people are treated equally according to their individual qualities, without the need for legal sanction.
    Mrs. Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. I have listened very carefully to the speech being made by the Opposition spokesman, and wonder whether it is within the context of this group of amendments. It seems that the
    1122
    hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) is sharing his anti-European views rather than speaking to the amendments.
    The First Deputy Chairman: The hon. Gentleman has so far been in order.
    Mr. Jenkin: I am most grateful, Mr. Martin. It seems that my comments are inciting exactly the type of intolerance that a tolerant society should not exhibit.
    Until we establish a perfect society, the issues that we are debating are bound to be controversial—as we have seen in this debate. There will always be those—among whom I include some hon. Members—who are more concerned about equality and parity of outcome than about the simple fairness with which individual cases are treated.
    I remind the hon. Member for Perth that she favoured the words
    "equality of opportunity for all people",
    which does not necessarily mean that there will be, for example, equal numbers of sexes in the Scottish Parliament—[HON. MEMBERS: "How many are there?"'] There are two sexes.
    The question that we must confront is whether such issues should be the responsibility of Westminster or of Holyrood. We have tabled none of the amendments in this group, and therefore take the privilege of commenting as dispassionate observers.
    Mr. Browne: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Jenkin: I have given way enough.
    The logic of the Scottish National party's amendment No. 347 accords with the cry of pro-devolution campaigners that this Parliament should trust the Scottish people. It is extraordinary that that reservation in the Bill shows, once again, that the Government do not trust the Scottish people with a contentious matter. The Government's amendments in this group amplify that lack of trust.
    The SNP amendments demonstrate that both it and the Government want the same obligations to be imposed on the Scottish Parliament. However, with additional logic, the SNP wants those obligations to be imposed by the Scottish Parliament itself and not by Westminster.
    Mr. Browne rose—
    Dr. Godman rose—
    Mr. Jenkin: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman).
    Dr. Godman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I thought that he was perfectly right to mention the European Court of Justice, as matters that we are debating could be taken there for a decision. Does he agree that that court—that supreme court of European member states—has a pretty poor record in defending the interests of women workers?
    Mr. Jenkin: Again, I shall not be tempted into a debate entirely on the European Court.

    1123
    In principle, if those obligations are to exist, they should be self-imposed rather than imposed from above.
    Mr. Browne: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Jenkin: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman, and do not intend to do so again.
    We shall not be voting for any of the amendments in this group. The reality behind the amendments is an ugly competition to decide who wins the prize for political correctness. Specifically lurking in the amendments is the issue of candidate selection—which will be debated in a later group of amendments—and the conflicting legal opinions in the Government on the legality, or otherwise, of positive discrimination. That issue was raised in the debate on Second Reading, when it was made clear—
    The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will discuss those matters when we reach that later group of amendments.
    Mr. Jenkin: The fact remains that the SNP, and its separatist counterparts in other parties, is looking forward to the Secretary of State's humiliation when he fails in the Scottish Parliament on the gender equality issue—which the Scottish Constitutional Convention proposed, and to which, originally, the Secretary of State gave his approval. It will be yet another bone of contention between London and Edinburgh for nationalists to chew on, demonstrating yet again the real lack of consensus that surrounds the project's crucial details.
    Ms Osborne: I support those amendments which seek to inculcate the principle of equal opportunities in the way in which the Scottish Parliament conducts its business and in the exercise of the functions devolved to the Parliament, including the provision of an annual report on how that is being achieved. That would strengthen the Bill as well as emphasising the intention that the Parliament will conduct its business in line with the year 2000, not the dark ages.
    The Minister may well say that the Scottish Parliament can consider such matters for itself, but it has been my experience that unless a clear commitment to equal opportunities exists from the start, it is at best pushed on to the sidelines or, at worst, ignored.
    9 pm
    Labour Members are very well aware of the strength of feeling on this issue, and this is currently highlighted at the moment in relation to equal representation. However, this is but the culmination of many years of work in the sphere of equal opportunities carried out, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mrs. McKenna) stated, by local authorities and trade unions.
    A culture of promoting equality has gradually been created in Scotland and throughout the United Kingdom by local authority women's committees. This is not and should not be the property of any one political party or organisation, expendable if there is a change of political climate, a cut in resources, or even a change of majority
    1124
    control in the Parliament. I use my experience as an example. I was formerly a councillor on Kyle and Carrick council. When Labour lost control of the council to the Conservatives, the Conservatives closed the women's unit and the creche which had been very popular locally.
    We have an opportunity to make good equal opportunities practice a reality from day one, but experience shows that monitoring and evaluation are required if an equal opportunities policy is to be effective.
    Let us consider the example of violence against women. Tackling this problem is one of the Government's three main priorities for women. Many reports on this topic have been produced over the years—some have sat on the shelf, while others have been implemented piecemeal. My hon. Friend the Minister is aware that recent research has shown that women, especially those in rural areas, do not experience a consistency of service nor a coherence of approach across Departments and agencies. Proper monitoring arrangements could ensure a more effective response to this and other issues.
    I return to the importance of a modern approach. I believe that equal opportunities are central to this and to the new Scottish Parliament. There is plenty of best practice to which the Scottish Parliament can look, and I am sure that many women councillors in Scotland can teach the new Members of the Scottish Parliament a thing or two about equal opportunities and especially about operating on the basis of consensus.
    In the new Scottish Parliament, issues that have not traditionally been at the forefront of debate, but which have a tremendously important impact on all our lives, have to be formalised by inclusion in the Bill. I hope that that notion will find favour with the Minister and that consideration will be given to supporting it.
    Mr. Gorrie: The Liberal Democrats are happy to support amendment No. 347, which we hope will be voted on shortly, and the others that try to promote the cause of equal opportunities in the Scottish Parliament. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) put his name to several of these amendments to show our support.
    We think that amendment No. 347 is the best. It provides that equal opportunities should be deleted from the list of reservations, thereby leaving the matter entirely under the control of the Scottish Parliament. However, there is a great deal of merit in the two new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe), and if it is easier for the Minister to accept them than to accept the amendment tabled by the SNP, and to which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland has put his name, we shall certainly encourage him to do so.
    We take a straightforward approach. Everything that refers to affairs in Scotland should be dealt with in the Scottish Parliament, unless there is a good reason to the contrary. We see no reason why the Scottish Parliament should not legislate for equal opportunities.
    As has been said, the Scottish Parliament will be constrained by international and European obligations, and by existing British law. It is very unlikely that it would reduce the power of equal opportunities legislation, and I would be confident that Members of the Scottish Parliament would move in a progressive direction rather than relax the rules.

    1125
    Clearly, the Government think that encouragement is adequate. I suppose that Government amendment No. 558 is a step in the right direction, but it is a pretty feeble step. It would make the reservation in the schedule read:
    "The encouragement (other than by prohibition or regulation) of equal opportunities, and in particular of the observance of the equal opportunity requirements."
    The Parliament could make noises but do nothing. With due respect, that is the wettest amendment I have come across in my brief time in the House.
    We believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to legislate. I probably do not have the necessary experience or imagination to conjure up the right suggestions but, as has been said, the Scottish Parliament might wish to take a more active line against domestic violence by organising tenancies for women in a more favourable manner. As I understand it, it would not be allowed to do so. The Parliament might wish to legislate differently from England in order to discourage racism at football matches. It might even wish to discourage people at Murrayfield from whistling when the English are about to take a place kick.
    Mr. Browne: I am very interested in those examples, but my understanding is that they represent breaches of the criminal law, which is well within the competence of the Scottish Parliament and its devolved powers. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could give a case that is not within the devolved legislative powers of the Scottish Parliament, and thus provide the example that the hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham) was unable to give, other than in the context of discrimination against England.
    Mr. Gorrie: With respect, I should have thought that altering tenancy arrangements to make them more favourable to women and offering positive discrimination to assist battered women was not a matter of criminal law. There was recently a case in which a senior police officer—
    Mr. Browne rose—
    Mr. Gorrie: I am not a lawyer and you are, but I am trying to approach the matter in a common-sense manner—
    The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am not a lawyer.
    Mr. Gorrie: I apologise, Sir Alan. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is a brilliant advocate, so I shall not allow him to trip me up.
    In a recent case, a senior police officer felt that he had been discriminated against in applying for the post of chief constable in Scotland because he was English. There are other such cases in Scotland where different issues arise because of the prominence of English and other European people. The Scottish Parliament might wish to take a slightly different attitude from that of the Westminster Parliament to ensure that those people got a fair deal.
    Dr. Godman: With regard to the example that the hon. Gentleman has just used, may I remind him that a Scots
    1126
    police officer sought the post of Chief Constable in Northern Ireland and was most put out when he did not get on the shortlist? Many of us would agree that it made good sense not to have someone from elsewhere taking on such an important post in the Province.
    Mr. Gorrie: The person to whom I referred was already working in Scotland, so he would not have been imported. However, the Scottish Parliament might wish to draw the rules slightly differently from the Westminster Parliament because different circumstances apply in Scotland. The same argument applies to equal opportunities as applies to education, health, housing and many other matters. The Scots should have the right to do things a bit differently if they want to and are prepared to pay for it.
    Mr. McAllion: The hon. Gentleman has made several references to housing as if the Scottish Parliament would be prevented from implementing anti-discrimination policies in housing because of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, the Equal Pay Act 1970, the Race Relations Act 1976 and so on. Positive Action in Housing, one of the foremost campaigners in Scottish housing, is proposing a variety of changes to Scottish law. Such matters will be devolved to the Scottish Parliament and it would be perfectly consistent for it to continue with those policies without offending anyone.
    Mr. Gorrie: The body to which the hon. Gentleman refers is not receiving adequate Government funding, but that is a separate issue.
    The right of a Scottish Parliament to legislate is important. It may be that, through inexperience, my examples are not too hot, but the principle is that the Scottish Parliament should be allowed to legislate. We cannot predict the future and, as has been said, equal opportunities is a rapidly moving subject and new aspects may occur that none of us—even those who are far more intelligent than me—can foresee. Why should the Scottish Parliament not control measures relating to equal opportunities? It seems to be a perfectly straightforward issue and the Minister must give positive reasons why that should not be devolved to the Scottish Parliament.
    Dr. Godman: I shall be brief. First, I offer my compliments to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) on her new clauses and her presentation of them. I hope that she agrees that the Government's amendment No. 559 comes close to addressing some of the legitimate concerns that she shares with the hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham).
    Mrs. Fyfe: For the record, yes, I agree.
    Dr. Godman: That was an astonishingly brief intervention from my hon. Friend and I have no difficulty in thanking her for it.
    We are concerned that the Scottish Parliament should include a substantial number of women representatives from all points of the compass. We are also concerned about the people who are employed at the Parliament. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister of State are concerned to protect the interests of those with disabilities. I should certainly like the Scottish Parliament

    1127
    and the Welsh assembly to employ people with disabilities—especially learning disabilities. All kinds of people should be involved, not only as elected representatives, but in various other functions and jobs. People aged 50 or more should also be employed as there should be no ceilings in terms of career prospects.
    It is important that the Government recognise the need to defend, and indeed promote, the interests of people with mental or physical disabilities. We all have constituents with learning disabilities who find it enormously difficult to find work. The new Parliament could set a splendid example in terms of fair and reasonable contracts of employment for people employed at Holyroodhouse. It should be Calton hill, but I had better stick to Holyroodhouse. I once suggested that we should use that much underused building, the palace of Holyroodhouse, but I was slapped down, so I shall not return to that.
    We have to send a message to the people of Scotland that, in addition to fair play on sexual equality, there will be fairness for many other groups, including those of different sexual orientation. That must cover the representatives in the Parliament and those who are employed by it.
    9.15 pm
    Mr. McLeish: I wish that there had been more time for this important debate. We may have some differences on some of the amendments, but there is a general concern that the Parliament should push forward the frontiers of equal opportunities. In the 10 minutes available, I should like to respond positively to the constructive points that have been made.
    Government amendment No. 558 is intended to clarify the fact that the exception from the reservation designed to ensure that the Parliament has competence over the encouragement of equal opportunities does not extend to prohibition or regulation. It was always our intention that the Parliament and the Executive should be able to encourage equal opportunities, but not that they should be able to impose new duties or additional regulation in equal opportunities matters. That is the substance of the reservation. The amendment will also ensure that the Parliament is not prevented from encouraging equal opportunities generally.
    Mrs. Laing rose—
    Mr. McLeish: With the greatest courtesy, I should like to get through what I have to say. There are several amendments to deal with and I have some constructive comments to make.
    Government amendment No. 559 makes it clear that the Parliament will be able to discourage discrimination on grounds of a person's age, sexual orientation, language or social origin. It reflects concerns that have been expressed in Committee and outside. Although the amendment will not change the existing legislation on equal opportunities, we recognise that people can suffer discrimination on those grounds, especially sexual orientation. I commend both amendments to the Committee.
    1128
    I am also very aware of the need for a close and effective relationship between the main equal opportunities bodies in Scotland—the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Commission for Racial Equality and the National Disability Council—and the Scottish Parliament and Executive. As I made clear earlier in Committee, they will not be cross-border public bodies because it is not our intention that the Scottish Parliament should have competence over their functions.
    However, I am concerned that there should be a Scottish element in the membership of those bodies and that the Scottish Parliament should have a guaranteed opportunity to debate their work. The Government intend to make the necessary arrangements to ensure that one member of each of the EOC, the CRE and the NDC will be appointed with the agreement of the Scottish Ministers and that there will be provision for the reports of those bodies to be provided to Scottish Ministers and submitted by them to the Parliament at Holyrood. That will allow the Parliament to keep in touch with the work of the equal opportunities bodies. That is an important step forward, within the framework of the general reservation of those bodies.
    Within the framework set out in the Bill, the Parliament and Executive will be able to create and implement their own equal opportunities policies. They will be able to encourage equal opportunities by exhorting and giving guidance to public authorities and others to adopt equal opportunities policies, running advertising campaigns and setting up an advisory committee. They will be able to seek to influence the development of equal opportunities legislation in Westminster. Scottish Members of Parliament at Westminster can ensure that Scottish interests are reflected in any new legislation.
    On page 76, the Bill refers to important equal opportunities legislation—the Equal Pay Act 1970, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, the Race Relations Act 1976 and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Those important competencies are reserved to Westminster. Scottish Members at Westminster will contribute to those issues. As I have just made clear, the Parliament and the Executive will maintain strong links with the EOC, the CRE and the NDC. One member of each will be appointed with the agreement of the Scottish Ministers. The bodies' annual reports will, of course, be provided.
    Amendments Nos. 347 to 350, tabled by the Scottish National party, raise related issues to those covered by new clauses 7 and 8, which were tabled by my hon. Friends. Amendment No. 347 would simply remove equal opportunities from the list of reserved matters. That would undermine the level playing field for business and individuals in employment and other matters in the UK, and clearly the Government cannot accept that.
    I suspect that the hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham) knew that I could not accept amendment No. 347, because she tabled an alternative, amendment No. 348, which would enable the Scottish Parliament to require public bodies to make arrangements with a view to securing that their functions are carried out with due regard to the principle that there should be equality of opportunity for all people. That would go further than the exception to the reservation, which is to enable the Scottish Parliament to establish requirements relating to the observance by public bodies of the legal requirements of equal opportunities that may be in place.

    1129
    That approach is needed to preserve the level playing field. Leaving scope to impose greater duties would be contrary to that underlying principle.
    Amendments Nos. 349 and 350 would add "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" respectively to the interpretation of equal opportunities in the schedule. I have already spoken to Government amendment No. 559, which adds age, sexual orientation, language and social origin to the list, and which, of course, accepts the point made in respect of amendment No. 349. Any list could be extended to cover all possible instances of discrimination. I hope that the hon. Member for Perth will recognise the steps that we have taken to meet her concern. I therefore ask her not to press her amendments to a vote.
    Amendment No. 94 and new clauses 7 and 8 reflect a concern to support equal opportunities that I wholly share. Equality of opportunity will be fundamental to the Scottish Parliament both in the way in which it conducts its business and in the policies that it adopts through legislation. Our White Paper made that very clear. However, our priority is to ensure that the Scottish Parliament will be able to encourage the observance of equal opportunities. The exceptions are designed to ensure that the Parliament can exercise a role in respect of equal opportunities by, for example, supporting the various campaigns to which I referred earlier, giving guidance to public bodies dealing with devolved matters and developing non-discriminatory policies in all devolved areas. The two new clauses would impose new duties on the Scottish Parliament to observe equal opportunities in the conduct of its business and the exercise of its functions. New clause 8 would require an annual report. I hope to persuade my hon. Friends that there is no need for the provisions.
    I do not think that such provisions would sit well with the role and purpose of the Scottish Parliament. It would be quite inappropriate for a body with primary legislative competence, unlike the national Welsh assembly, to be given duties and required to report on its performance as if it were an executive body. Whereas my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has concluded that it would be appropriate for those and a range of other duties to be imposed on the Welsh assembly, which in certain key respects is construed as an executive body, it would be inconsistent with the status of the Scottish Parliament and an unacceptable constraint on its discretion.
    We must remember that we are creating—I hope—a mature and responsible Parliament, which will be capable of making important decisions and developing its own policies. I am sure that equal opportunities for all will be one of its guiding principles—although I repeat that we do not need to legislate for that here. I hope that I have said enough to convince my hon. Friends that amendment No. 94 and new clauses 7 and 8 are unnecessary, and that they will not press them to a vote.
    This matter is very important not only to the Government, but to me. It is crucial that we lay markers down to do things differently in the new Parliament. That is the essence of devolution—devolving competencies, but ensuring that, if we can do better, we will do better. I sincerely hope that the debate's unifying theme is one of taking equal opportunities very seriously. Given that and the Scotland Act that the Bill will surely become, I am sure
    1130
    that Members of the Scottish Parliament at Holyrood will be able to move forward and give every minority adequate protection in Scotland in order to develop their potential.
    Ms Roseanna Cunningham: I welcome some of the Minister's comments, particularly the moves that I mentioned in respect of some of the amendments. I welcome his further statement on the various bodies' Scottish element and their membership, and the fact that such bodies will be required to submit reports. I am sure that we are all thankful for that.
    I am disappointed by the Minister's retorts about amendment No. 347. The hon. Member for Ayr (Ms Osborne)—I hope that I am not misquoting her, even though I did not take a note of it at the time—said that equal opportunities had to be at the heart of the Scottish Parliament, which is absolutely right. I agree with the Minister that the new Parliament has to be one that does better. I would like it to do a great deal better all round, but it will not have the opportunity. I therefore wish to press the amendment.
    Question put, That the amendment be made:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 39, Noes 284.

    Division No. 236]

    [9.24 pm

    AYES

    Allan, Richard

    Keetch, Paul

    Baker, Norman

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Brake, Tom

    Livsey, Richard

    Brand, Dr Peter

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

    Breed, Colin

    Moore, Michael

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Oaten, Mark

    Burnett, John

    Rendel, David

    Campbell, Menzies (NE File)

    Salmond, Alex

    Chidgey, David

    Sanders, Adrian

    Cotter, Brian

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

    Cunningham, Ms Roseanna

    Stunell, Andrew

    (Perth)

    Swinney, John

    Dafis, Cynog

    Tyler, Paul

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    Wallace, James

    Fearn, Ronnie

    Welsh, Andrew

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

    George, Andrew (St Ives)

    Willis, Phil

    Hancock, Mike

    Harris, Dr Evan

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Mr. Alasdair Morgan and Mr. Donald Gorrie.

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    NOES

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

    Betts, Clive

    Ainger, Nick

    Blackman, Liz

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Alexander, Douglas

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Allen, Graham

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Brinton, Mrs Helen

    Ashton, Joe

    Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Browne, Desmond

    Austin, John

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Banks, Tony

    Byers, Stephen

    Barnes, Harry

    Caborn, Richard

    Bayley, Hugh

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Beard, Nigel

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Canavan, Dennis

    Beggs, Roy

    Cann, Jamie

    Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

    Casale, Roger

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Caton, Martin

    Benton, Joe

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    1131

    Clapham, Michael

    Hanson, David

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Healey, John

    Clark, Dr Lynda

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Heppell, John

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Hesford, Stephen

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Hill, Keith

    Clelland, David

    Hodge, Ms Margaret

    Clwyd, Ann

    Hoey, Kate

    Coaker, Vernon

    Home Robertson, John

    Coleman, Iain

    Hood, Jimmy

    Colman, Tony

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Connarty, Michael

    Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Cooper, Yvette

    Howells, Dr Kim

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Corston, Ms Jean

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Cousins, Jim

    Hurst, Alan

    Cranston, Ross

    Hutton, John

    Crausby, David

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    Ingram, Adam

    Cummings, John

    Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Jamieson, David

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Jenkins, Brian

    Dalyell, Tarn

    Johnson, Miss Melanie

    Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

    (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Davidson, Ian

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

    Jowell, Ms Tessa

    Dawson, Hilton

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Dismore, Andrew

    Kelly, Ms Ruth

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Khabra, Piara S

    Doran, Frank

    Kidney, David

    Drew, David

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Drown, Ms Julia

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Kingham, Ms Tess

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Edwards, Huw

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Efford, Clive

    Lawrence, Ms Jackie

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Lepper, David

    Etherington, Bill

    Leslie, Christopher

    Fatchett, Derek

    Levitt, Tom

    Field, Rt Hon Frank

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Linton, Martin

    Fitzsimons, Lorna

    Love, Andrew

    Flint, Caroline

    McAllion, John

    Flynn, Paul

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Forsythe, Clifford

    McCabe, Steve

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    McCafferty, Ms Chris

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Foulkes, George

    Macdonald, Calum

    Fyfe, Maria

    McFall, John

    Galbraith, Sam

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Galloway, George

    McIsaac, Shona

    Gardiner, Barry

    McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

    George, Bruce (Walsall S)

    McLeish, Henry

    Gerrard, Neil

    McNamara, Kevin

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    McWalter, Tony

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Goggins, Paul

    Mallaber, Judy

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Gordon, Mrs Eileen

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Martlew, Eric

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Meale, Alan

    Grogan, John

    Michael, Alun

    Gunnell, John

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    Hain, Peter

    Miller, Andrew

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Mitchell, Austin

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Moffatt, Laura

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    1132

    Moran, Ms Margaret

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

    Soley, Clive

    Motley, Elliot

    Southworth, Ms Helen

    Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Squire, Ms Rachel

    Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    Mudie, George

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Stevenson, George

    Norris, Dan

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    O'Neill, Martin

    Stott, Roger

    Osborne, Ms Sandra

    Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Stringer, Graham

    Pearson, Ian

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Pendry, Tom

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Perham, Ms Linda

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

    Pickthall, Colin

    (Dewsbury)

    Pike, Peter L

    Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

    Pond, Chris

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Pope, Greg

    Timms, Stephen

    Pound, Stephen

    Todd, Mark

    Powell, Sir Raymond

    Touhig, Don

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Trickett, Jon

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Truswell, Paul

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Purchase, Ken

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Quin, MsJoyce

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Radice, Giles

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Rapson, Syd

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Raynsford, Nick

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

    Watts, David

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    White, Brian

    Rogers, Allan

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan

    Roy, Frank

    (Swansea W)

    Ruane, Chris

    Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Ruddock, Ms Joan

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    Winnick, David

    Ryan, Ms Joan

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Salter, Martin

    Wise, Audrey

    Sawford, Phil

    Woolas, Phil

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Worthington, Tony

    Sheerman, Barry

    Wray, James

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Wyatt, Derek

    Skinner, Dennis

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Smith, Miss Geraldine

    Mr. Jim Dowd and Jane Kennedy.

    (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

    Question accordingly negatived.
    It being four and three quarter hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee, THE CHAIRMAN, pursuant to the Order [13 January] and the Resolution [30 March], put the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
    Amendments made: No. 558, in page 76, line 29, after 'encouragement', insert
    '(other than by prohibition or regulation) of equal opportunities, and in particular'.
    No. 559, in page 76, line 36, after 'disability', insert
    ',age, sexual orientation, language or social origin,'.—[Mr. McFall.]
    Mr. Jenkin: I beg to move amendment No. 484, in page 77, leave out line 10.
    The Chairman): With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 485, in page 77, line 16, at end insert—
    'Timescales, time zones and the subject matter of the Summer Time Act 1972'.
    Mr. Jenkin: These are probing amendments. This is one of the matters that surely should continue to unite our kingdom. However, we are likely to be in agreement with many of the arguments advanced against the amendments. We do not expect for a moment that the Government will accept them, but they give us another opportunity to expose the faulty logic that lies at the heart of the Bill, and the future friction that may result.
    The question of Greenwich mean time has been a contentious one over many years. There was the British standard time experiment in 1968–71, which did not settle the issue. In the previous Parliament, two Bills from another place were presented to the House in 1995 and 1996. A private Member's Bill was presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) during 1995–96, entitled the British Time (Extra Daylight) Bill, which proposed to put the United Kingdom on central European time.
    Those in Scotland and Northern Ireland have always argued a different case from those in England, yet the Scots have always won. This flies in the face of what pro-devolutionists usually say about the House of Commons, which is that Scotland is always outvoted. The majority in England has always bent over backwards on this issue. Now that there is to be a Scottish Parliament, the first question we must consider is whether this English tolerance will continue.
    The Bill presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West was a case in point. At one stage, it looked possible that it would get through, but the then Secretary of State for Scotland made a gallant stand in the Cabinet to ensure that the Government, as the Library brief on the Bill makes clear, did not actively lend their support to, or provide any extra time for, the measure. He described said that it was
    "misguided, unnecessary and would be deeply damaging in Scotland."
    His arguments won the day, because he was a Scottish Secretary of State at the heart of the process of government, and a full-time contributor to the politics of the United Kingdom. This is a classic example of how the Parliament of the Union has always in the end respected the minority rather than the majority.
    Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman has his notes in front of him, but I remember that that Bill failed because not enough people turned up on a Friday to vote for it. Where were his colleagues on that day?
    Mr. Jenkin: The Bill might have taken on a life of its own had it not been for the attitude of the then Cabinet, swung by the then Secretary of State. If the hon. Gentleman doubts my word, he can ring him up and ask him.
    The second question that must be answered is this. If English and Welsh Members of Parliament eventually choose to outvote their northern colleagues—the Bill offers the certain prospect that there will eventually be fewer of them—should not the Scottish people be able to
    1134
    decide their own time? Under a single Parliament, it has always been considered undesirable that the United Kingdom should be split between two time zones, but that may change if the Scottish Parliament, under this amendment, decided to exercise its choice in favour of the lesser of two evils.
    The Government argue in the notes on schedule 5 that it is necessary to be in the same time zone because of the need to create a common market in the United Kingdom. Clearly, that is rubbish, considering that the Common Market in Europe does not rely on member states being in the same time zone. Portugal, Greece and the United Kingdom are not on central European time.
    It would be unsatisfactory for the United Kingdom to be split in that way. It is the policy of the Conservative party, both north and south of the border, that the interests of the United Kingdom are best served by the whole kingdom living in the same time zone, and that our hour should be Greenwich mean time, or British summer time, not central European time.
    The interests of the whole are best served by recognising the interests of the minority, but whether that is sustainable after the birth of the Scottish Parliament is another matter, because the responsibility that English and Welsh Members of Parliament feel for Scotland and Scottish affairs will inevitably be diminished.
    If Westminster puts the United Kingdom on central European time, under this amendment the Scottish Parliament could at least be offered a choice.
    Mr. McLeish: I shall do the Committee a favour. I have five pages of script with which I could entertain the Committee, but in view of the importance of the item that follows—sex discrimination and selection of candidates—I shall simply say that time scales, time zones and summer time must be reserved matters. It makes sense to have common standards throughout the United Kingdom, not least to preserve a level playing field for business and services.
    I thought that we were going to have more than a probing amendment, but I entirely agree with every sentiment that the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) expressed. His contribution had nothing to do with the amendments that were tabled. As far as we are concerned, these are reserved matters. It would be useful for the Committee to get on with the business.
    Mr. Jenkin: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.

  New clause 9

    SEX DISCRIMINATION IN SELECTION OF CANDIDATES
    '.—Nothing contained in the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 shall render unlawful any action by a registered political party for the purpose of selecting candidates for election to the Parliament as constituency members or regional members.'.— [Mrs. Fyfe.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    9.45 pm
    Mrs. Fyfe: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss new clause 10—Court action for alleged sex discrimination—
    '.—(1) In the case of any court action undertaken by a person who claims not to have been chosen as a candidate for a constituency or regional seat at any election for the Parliament on grounds of his sex, the court shall, in forming its judgement, take into account the compliance or otherwise of the registered political party concerned with any relevant United Nations Convention and with any relevant Resolution of the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, and the extent to which any temporary special measures undertaken by the political party in question are in compliance with that Convention or Resolution.
    (2) Such measures as are mentioned in subsection (1) shall not be held to be in breach of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, if both women and men have equal rights to selection as candidates for the political party in question, and the criteria for selection as candidates do not discriminate against men or women.'.
    Mrs. Fyfe: I thank all Labour women Members of Parliament who joined me this morning in paying tribute to Emily Pankhurst, one of the founders of the Women's Social and Political Union. It is 70 years ago this month that the House debated the Second Reading of the Representation of the People (Equal Franchise) Bill which gave all adult women the vote.
    Ellen Wilkinson took part in that debate. When she entered the House, she said that she felt that she had done so as a result of the labours of some of the best women that this country or the world had ever known. They made it possible for Parliament to do what it did that day. They made it possible for us women to be here today, and to argue, along with the support of our male colleagues, that the 1928 Act was not the final word, but that we must do all we can to achieve equal representation in our 21st-century Scottish Parliament.
    The Labour party is the only party that has come up with a system to achieve that. When I tabled my new clauses, I thought that the Liberal Democrats would also seek to achieve the same end in their own way. But let us look at the Liberal Democrats' role in all this. In November 1995, they signed a formal electoral agreement with the Labour party. I have it here with me. It states:
    "The Scottish Labour Party and the Scottish Liberal Democrats formally agree to accept the principle that there should be an equal number of men and women as members of the first Scottish Parliament. In order to achieve this aim, the parties agree and commit themselves to:
    Select and field an equal number of male and female candidates for election, taking into account both the Constituency and Additional Member List candidates;
    Ensure that these candidates are equally distributed with a view to the winnability of seats;
    Use an Additional Member System … for elections;
    Ensure that the size of the Scottish Parliament is large enough to facilitate effective democratic representative Government."
    That is signed by Marilyne MacLaren, convenor, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats—I exempt her from the critical comments that I am about to make—and by the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats.
    That followed years of promises, when we all met in the Scottish Constitutional Convention, that the Liberal Democrats would play their part; that they were every bit
    1136
    as committed to gender equality as we in the Labour party were. They were utterly opposed to doing anything by law within the Scotland Bill which would have guaranteed it—that was held to be against Liberal Democrat principles. Therefore, we, in our honest efforts to work together with the Liberal Democrats for the greater good of Scotland, agreed to work separately in our own ways and in our own parties to achieve equal numbers of men and women in the Scottish Parliament. The goal was 50:50.
    Because other parties are opposed to the whole concept, or unwilling to back positive action, we knew before the Bill was printed that 50:50 representation could not be achieved. But still we could hope for a greater proportion of women in the Scottish Parliament than had been seen anywhere else in any national Parliament.
    That was until last weekend, when the Liberal Democrats at their Scottish conference decided to do nothing but offer the usual meaningless, fruitless encouragement—the kind of inaction that has seen them deliver one female Member of Parliament in Scotland in 75 years of women being elected to Parliament.
    The Liberal Democrats have betrayed their own women members, who believed that proportional representation would, of itself, deliver for women. They have behaved treacherously to the Labour party and all those in the Scottish Constitutional Convention who, over the years. committed themselves to equal representation in the Scottish Parliament. Worst of all, they have done their bit to ensure that the new Scottish Parliament will not reflect the people who vote for it. It will be a male-dominated body after all.
    The only hope for women in Scotland lies with the Labour party. It is because of my anxiety that it should not go wrong, despite our best intentions, that I tabled my new clauses. But whatever the Liberal Democrats say or do tonight, nothing can hide their shame or protect them from the blame that lies squarely at their door.
    We in the Labour party have made no attempt to impose our method on anyone else. This debate is about defending decisions democratically arrived at. Whether Opposition Members agree with the method or the aim is irrelevant; the point of this debate is that political parties should be free to choose their candidates. We intend to ensure that at least our contingent in the new Scottish Parliament will be balanced.
    Mr. Grieve: Will the hon. Lady give way?
    Mrs. Fyfe: I shall give way, but I hope that I am not doing something stupid.
    Mr. Grieve: The hon. Lady says that political parties should be free to choose as they wish, but the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, which she seeks to exclude and which was passed by a Labour Government, specifically prohibits what she proposes as interpreted by the European Court.
    Mrs. Fyfe: If the hon. Gentleman bides his time and is patient, he will hear my argument about that.
    When the Secretary of State proposed writing a short provision into the Scotland Bill to disapply the Sex Discrimination Act provisions to the electoral process, or make it utterly clear that a political party could pursue

    1137
    gender balance, an ad hoc committee chaired by the Lord Chancellor was informed that it would be impossible to make the change for the Scottish Parliament, but not for the Welsh assembly and the regional assemblies for England.
    So far, it is only in Scotland that there is any commitment to twinning or any other positive action, so why cannot the law in Scotland be different? We already have our own separate legal system. We already accept that proposals for Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland do not all have to be alike. Untidiness has been allowed for time and again, so why can we not make that change? Risking continuing with the same old inequalities would be worse than a little untidiness. However, I am told that, even if the Government were willing to amend the Sex Discrimination act, we would be up against the equal treatment directive; so let me deal first with the Sex Discrimination Act.
    Until the Jepson case, it was widely understood that the actions of political parties were outwith the Sex Discrimination Act. Section 33(2) says that section 29(1) of the Act should not be construed as affecting any special provision for persons of one sex only in the constitution, organisation and administration of a political party.
    When Mr. Jepson brought his case against the Labour party founded on section 13, the Equal Opportunities Commission obtained an opinion from leading counsel, which agreed that selection for parliamentary candidates did not constitute employment, and thus did not fall within the scope of the SDA in any case. The selection process was to be considered an internal matter for the political parties. The EOC was also advised by leading counsel, subsequent to the Jepson and Kalanke cases, that the election of parliamentary candidates fell within the scope of neither the SDA nor the equal treatment directive.
    The industrial tribunal agreed with Mr. Jepson, although tribunals elsewhere in the country would not have done so. The crucial point is that one industrial tribunal decision does not make law for the whole country, and does not set a precedent.
    Mr. Grieve: Will the hon. Lady give way?
    Mrs. Fyfe: No, I have already given way. In the time available to me, I intend to go through the detailed arguments.
    In coming to its decision, the industrial tribunal referred to the equal treatment directive. That was rather odd, because European directives are not an aid to interpretation of UK Acts of Parliament. The tribunal could legitimately have asked the European Court of Justice for a ruling on whether the directive applied in the Jepson case. Instead, it used its own interpretation of the directive to distort the meaning of section 13 of the Sex Discrimination Act.
    When the Labour party did not appeal against the case, it was widely accepted that it could not do so at the time, because selections for candidates were under way. However, there was talk of amending the SDA at some time to make the position clear and beyond doubt, but at present there is no proposal to do so. Apparently, that is because, even if we did so, we could still fall foul of the equal treatment directive.
    I shall now deal with the European scene. Nothing stops a potential litigant taking up a case under the equal treatment directive, although that would be much more
    1138
    difficult and complex than raising it under the Sex Discrimination Act, because the directive may be relevant only if the selection of parliamentary candidates comes within its scope. There has been no ruling on that whatever; indeed, no equal opportunities legislation of the European Union relates specifically to national electoral systems. The legal base for the directive is article 235TEC, which regulates the labour market. There is no general power to go beyond those objectives.
    The Marschall decision and the Kalanke decision, which it overruled, were in both cases to do with civil servants applying for a single vacancy. Article 24 states that the provisions of the directive shall be without prejudice to measures to promote equal opportunities for men and women. The judgment of the European Court of Justice in the Marschall case ruled that a selection procedure that gave priority to female candidates where fewer women than men were employed was not unlawful discrimination, provided that there was an objective assessment of male as well as female candidates.
    It should be noted, however, that the Labour party's twinning proposals do not give priority to female candidates; they ensure broadly equal representation. If a man could pursue a court action because he was not selected as a candidate, so could a woman with equal justice.
    Noreen Burrows, professor of law at Glasgow university, has pointed out that, in the 1997 French parliamentary elections, the Socialist party reserved 30 per cent. of constituencies for female candidates. The French Parliament is not brand new, and such action involved a bigger upheaval than starting from scratch, as we are. No challenge was made by individuals in France or by the European Commission, and no mention was made in France of the equal treatment directive. I wonder why we are being advised that such a challenge is likely.
    After the general election, the French Prime Minister suggested the introduction of a parity clause to the French constitution. "Quel horreur!", some people might say, yet there was no reaction from the European Court of Justice, or anywhere else.
    A number of European electoral systems provide for positive discrimination by way of quotas. None of those arrangements has been challenged by the Commission as a breach of the equal treatment directive. It is far from clear whether the directive even applies to electoral law. I wonder why we are so out of step with the rest of Europe.
    Other events in Europe are relevant. One of the five objectives of the European Commission's fourth equal opportunities action programme is promotion not of some women or a few women, but of gender balance. Article 3 of the Maastricht treaty states:
    "The community shall aim to eliminate inequalities, and to promote equality between men and women."
    The Amsterdam treaty allows states to take measures to ensure full equality for women and men, including those that would allow an under-represented sex to pursue a vocation.
    The treaty of Amsterdam amends the treaty of Rome to make it clear that positive actions to redress the under-representation of women are lawful. Article 3 states:
    "the Community shall aim to eliminate inequalities, and to promote equality between men and women".

    1139
    I could refer to other articles, but I hope that I have made my point.
    We also have a United Nations convention to back us. In 1986, the previous Government signed up to the report of the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, which meant that they agreed with the elimination of discrimination against women. Article 4 of the convention encourages the use of "temporary special measures" to give effect to article 7. Many other aspects of the CEDAW report support positive action.
    It is worrying, therefore, that the leaked memo from Lord Irvine states:
    "It was particularly awkward that Donald's proposal was limited to the first elections to the Scottish Parliament, because this would allow it to be presented as an artificial and expedient response to a particular political problem."
    The temporary special measures that the UN convention has encouraged are temporary, and they respond, on one occasion only, to a particular problem. I urge the Law Lords to reconsider the matter, and to think more carefully about the CEDAW report. I have been told, however, that UN conventions are not recognised in British law, which is a pity. I had hoped that, over time, the issue might have been taken more seriously.
    We also signed up to the Beijing declaration and platform for action, which arose from the UN conference on the status of women. It calls for additional measures to improve women's participation in decision making, particularly where they have been traditionally under-represented, and especially in elected positions.
    That might be regarded as insignificant in some quarters, but British politicians signed the declaration, and we should show that they meant it. Women have traditionally been under-represented in elected positions in Scotland. There have only ever been 28 women Members of Parliament in Scotland from all parties, from 1923 to the present day, which is an average of one every three years.
    If the Government accept my new clauses or take similar action of their own later, it will strengthen the position of any political party, large, small or tiny, that may otherwise have to defend itself against legal challenge.
    I have been asked why I am concerned. I accept that attitudes in the Labour party have changed. There was widespread support for twinning and for equal representation, but it would only require one objection to take the party to court and throw us into difficulty. It is because I am concerned about that possibility that I am asking my hon. Friends to consider this matter carefully before much more time elapses.
    10 pm
    Dr. Fox: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) was cruel in her criticism of the Liberal Democrat conference. Most opinion pollsters would agree that 10 is not a representative sample. She should not base her arguments on such a small number as appeared at the Liberal Democrat conference. It was the only conference that had to shift to a cupboard upstairs to ensure that delegates felt cosy.
    1140
    I am not particularly concerned about the Labour party's internal strife or its internal grief. The Conservative party has nothing to do with positive discrimination in selection procedures. We hope to get a wide spectrum of candidates, who are selected for their ability, not their anatomy.
    I have more than a little sympathy with some of the hon. Lady's points. I question the quality of the conflicting legal advice that the Government have received. I was interested to read an article in The Scotsman this morning, which suggested that the Labour party had received conflicting advice from two sources close to the Prime Minister. Mrs. Blair has advised that the "cleanest and clearest" way of achieving gender balance is for Ministers to change the law, whereas the Lord Chancellor has given quite different advice. It would be helpful if the Minister would clarify the legal position according to the advice that the Government have received.
    The hon. Lady referred to our freedom to operate as political parties within the restrictions of the legislation that she mentioned. If she is correct, and as we pride ourselves on our freedom of association, perhaps we should take a more libertarian view of our political practices and give ourselves greater freedom in how we conduct our policies and how we present ourselves to the electorate.
    I look forward to hearing the Minister deal with the reasonable points that the hon. Lady made, although she would not expect me to agree with a great deal of what she said. Some of her comments were legitimate in a genuinely democratic argument. We must decide whether, in the conduct of our politics, we should be bound by legislation passed in the 1970s, or whether we are free in a truly democratic state.
    Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: One of the several reasons why the people of Scotland voted for a Scottish Parliament, and why so many people are looking forward to its new politics, was the thought of having the first ever Parliament with gender equality. It would be the cruellest of ironies if that were to be prevented by the equal treatment directive after a century of unequal selection treatment of men and women.
    The debate is essentially about the equal treatment directive. My understanding is that the Government have no objection to clarifying the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, but their legal advice is that the new clause would contravene the equal treatment directive. Will the Government take a little more time to take further legal advice? The professor of European law at Glasgow university has been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe).
    There are two lines of argument about the equal treatment directive: first, that it does not apply to the electoral process, and secondly, that exceptions are allowed under article 2.4 to redress inequalities. I hope that the Government will take more time to consider the matter, and will not rule out clarification or temporary special measures as proposed by the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women.
    The Labour party is fully committed to achieving gender equality. We are merely asking the Government to go the last mile. Great progress has been made. The party

    1141
    is committed to twinning, and will go ahead in any case; we tabled the new clause just in case there was a challenge.
    As I said, we have one last mile to go, but the Liberal Democrats have many miles to go. It would be utter hypocrisy if the Liberal Democrats and others used the new clause as an excuse for not establishing party procedures to achieve gender equality. My plea to the Government is to take a little more time, and on that basis, I shall abstain in this evening's vote.
    Mr. Wallace: I agree with one thing that was said by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Chisholm): it would indeed be perverse if an equal treatment directive was used in a way that frustrated an opportunity to achieve gender balance. I shall return to that point later. I cannot, however, accept the hon. Gentleman's accusation of hypocrisy, or his suggestion that we would use the new clause as an excuse not to establish provisions to try to achieve gender balance in our parliamentary representation. The opposite is the case: we shall use the new clause in order to establish arrangements for gender balance.
    The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) seems so frustrated about the fact that the Lord Chancellor would not even see her to discuss the issue that she is taking it out on the Liberal Democrats. She would not allow the facts to get in the way of a good rant. The facts of the Liberal Democrats' position were set out in our conference in Dunfermline, and remain the party's policy. I do not recall that the hon. Lady ever said that anything was wrong with that policy; indeed, at the time she probably congratulated us on it.
    Mrs. Fyfe: What excuse will the hon. and learned Gentleman offer for breaking the solemn agreement that his party reached with the Labour party in November 1995?
    Mr. Wallace: I shall not offer any excuse; I shall merely tell the hon. Lady how the policy can be fulfilled. This is the policy of our party:
    "If the Scotland Bill exempts the political parties from sex discrimination legislation, the following system shall be used for the selection of list PSPCs"—
    that is, prospective Scottish parliamentary candidates.
    "(i) In combination, the Local Parties within each Euro-constituency shall draw up a short-list from the male applicants and a short-list from the female applicants;
    (ii) all members of the relevant Local Parties shall select the male and female members of the list in a ballot using single transferable voting … and in a separate count of the ballots shall order the lists".
    Let me pause parenthetically to note that the lists will be drawn up by our membership; they will not be imposed from on high, as the Labour party seems to propose.
    The document continues:
    "(iii) Conference shall elect four men and four women to an Electoral Agreement Committee, which shall be charged with:

    (1) taking into account the terms of the electoral Agreement;

    (2) taking into account the results of the PSPC selection in all constituencies where the Party's candidate received more than 15 per cent. of the vote in the 1997 General Election;

    (3) taking into account the likely overall gender balance of PSPCs within each Euro-constituency and neighbouring constituencies of similar geographic and political character;

    1142

    (4) drawing up from the ordered male and female lists of short-listed applicants a final, integrated list for each Euro-constituency; and

    (5) ensuring that the order of male PSPCs and female PSPCs on the final list in each Euro-constituency strictly adheres to the order arrived at by the all-member ballots."

    In other words, a mechanism exists—if the Bill exempts the political parties from the sex discrimination legislation. That is what we are arguing for, and that is why we support the new clause.
    Mrs. McKenna: How many candidates have already been selected, and how many are women?
    Mr. Wallace: Twelve have been selected, three of whom are women; but, as the hon. Lady knows, the electoral agreement referred to a balance between the first-past-the-post system and the lists. I am not sure whether the hon. Lady was party to the negotiations, but, if she had been, she would know that the lists were always seen as the mechanism through which we were most likely to achieve gender balance. We shall do that, if we can amend the Sex Discrimination Act.
    I welcome the opportunity provided by the new clause, and look forward to joining the hon. Member for Maryhill in the Lobby. She cannot accuse us of hypocrisy; it is the Labour party that is putting up the road blocks, and preventing us from implementing mechanisms that have already been introduced.
    As has been said, the Liberal Democrats took advice from Cherie Booth QC—principally with regard to the European elections, although the advice that we were given could also apply to elections to the Scottish Parliament. Her advice was that the clearest way of exercising positive discrimination was to disapply the Sex Discrimination Act from the selection of candidates. We understand that the minute from the Cabinet Committee, to which the hon. Member for Maryhill referred, states:
    "Without an amendment of the kind proposed by Donald"—
    whom we assume to be the Secretary of State for Scotland—
    "a political party adopting a selection process which appeared to discriminate in favour of women could be liable to challenge along the lines of the Jepson case."
    To be fair, it seems that the Secretary of State for Scotland realises the nature of the problem and, to his credit, he has been trying to remove the block of a possible challenge to parties that were trying to get some form of gender balance.
    Mr. Dalyell: Am I mistaken, or is the hon. and learned Gentleman quoting from a Cabinet Committee document? If he is, how did he get that document?
    Mr. Wallace: I am quoting from The Guardian of 3 March. It set out the terms of the leaked minute, and I am not aware of anyone challenging the accuracy of that leak. I have outlined the position that was taken by the Secretary of State but, regrettably, that position was not taken by the Cabinet Committee.
    I have said that we have a mechanism, but I can also say that we have more than that. The Trust for Scottish Liberal Democracy, whose members met at the weekend, has agreed that a substantial sum will be made available

    1143
    to women seeking selection in the lists. I understand that that will be matched by women Liberal Democrats to help to cover the costs of travel, campaigning and child care.
    Mrs. Irene Adams: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that in terms of proportional representation his party is already over-represented here and is unlikely to get any Members in the top-up of the Scottish Parliament, in which he could bring his mechanism into being?
    Mr. Wallace: I cannot agree that my party is over-represented here. We had 17 per cent. of the vote, and we have only 46 seats out of 659. That is not fair representation. Our Scottish seats are almost exactly proportional because we got 13 per cent. of the vote and 13.9 per cent. of the seats.
    Mr. John Home Robertson: No top-up.
    Mr. Wallace: The hon. Gentleman clearly does not understand the system upon which we are about to embark, because the additional member list will have top-ups from parts of the country in which we are not—
    Mr. Home Robertson: Do the Liberal Democrats expect to get top-up seats in Glasgow?
    Mr. Wallace: We shall get extra in Glasgow. The hon. Gentleman is in for a shock, because Labour will get no extra seats from the list in Glasgow: it is already over-represented there by a long way. I do not want to be tempted down the road of explaining the system of proportional representation to the hon. Gentleman. I shall give him a seminar on another occasion.
    The other parties will find the going difficult. We have heard that in Wales there might be legal challenges to what Labour is trying to do to achieve gender balance. We have tried to wrestle with the problem, and if the new clause is accepted, a mechanism will be put in place. The Cabinet Committee minute also states:
    "Harriet Harman also supported Donald. She accepted there was a risk of a successful challenge under the ETD, but this had to be set against the risk that the representation of women in the Scottish Parliament or Welsh Assembly would be unacceptably low if no action were taken, and an opportunity to advance modern democracy in these new institutions would have been lost."
    This is an opportunity. There are no incumbents and there is a chance to achieve a gender balance that has not been achieved in this place. We say, "Give us the legal backing to do it and we shall do it." That is why we shall support the new clause. Those who stand in our way will be hypocritical.
    Mr. McLeish: I do not think that I have seen the leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats quite so angry for some time, but there may be some good reasons for that. I shall cover the points that have been raised and address some of Labour's concerns about the Liberal Democrats. Our White Paper, "Scotland's Parliament" made it absolutely clear that we attach great importance to equal opportunities for all—including women, members of ethnic minorities and people with disabilities. Our White
    1144
    Paper urged all political parties offering candidates for election to have that in mind in their internal candidate selection processes.
    New clause 9 proposes that we should amend the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 to remove the selection procedures for parliamentary candidates from its scope. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) and I have had many discussions on the issue. I have tremendous sympathy for the intentions behind the new clause. We want the Scottish Parliament to be women friendly. We are trying to ensure through the building design and through other preparations that women will want to serve as Members of the Scottish Parliament. The facilities will be designed to serve equally the needs of women and men; there will, for example, be day care provision for children. On the procedures, our consultative steering group has already given thought to how the Parliament can be made more accessible to women and those with family responsibilities.
    The procedures will also be designed to be participative and, as far as possible, non-confrontational, so that all MSPs, both women and men, can contribute as fully as possible. That is how we are going about the question of encouraging equal representation in those particular areas.
    Mrs. Laing: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. McLeish: No. With the greatest courtesy, I should rather get through some of the elements of the matter.
    10.15 pm
    The requirements of European employment law and particularly the equal treatment directive have established the framework within which we must work. Any amendment to the Sex Discrimination Act enabling the parties to avoid falling foul of that domestic legislation might be found by the European Court of Justice to be in breach of the equal treatment directive. We could not guarantee that the parties would be free from challenge. The challenge could arise in the domestic courts, which could refer the case to the European Court of Justice. The result could be a severe disruption of candidate selection procedures.
    On new clause 10, I appreciate that the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women sanctions special and temporary measures. However, CEDAW does not override or exclude the requirements of the directive under EC law.
    The treaty of Amsterdam may pave the way for long-term change, but it will not be ratified in time to affect these elections and will not have retrospective effect. My hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill is aware that the Equal Opportunities Commission is examining the Sex Discrimination Act, but, again, the timing is not particularly convenient.
    I appreciate that there is a view that standing for or being a Member of Parliament is not an occupation and therefore outwith the scope of EU law. However, the possibility of challenge exists and, in our view, it is more likely than not that such a challenge would be successful.
    The Government have considered those matters very carefully. We appreciate that some people consider that there is no other way to secure equal representation,

    1145
    but we believe that the risks of breaching our Community obligations are too great and that we would be inviting a damaging and disruptive challenge.
    In our view, the key lies in the commitment of the political parties to bring forward women candidates through equal opportunities best practice. We are looking into the measures that could be taken by the parties within the scope of the law. I am absolutely delighted that the Labour party continues to seek legal ways in which to deliver the electoral agreement that it entered into in 1995 on the issue. I hope that the Liberal Democrats will not walk away from equal representation and that other parties will start to take the matter seriously.
    Mrs. McKenna: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. McLeish: I would rather just proceed.
    The Conservatives have at least been honest tonight. They want nothing to do with equal representation and they want no positive discrimination. There is honesty in that policy. It is certainly one with which I do not agree, but I remind the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) that he signed up to an agreement in which we were all involved. At that time, it did not make specific reference to changing any particular legislation.
    The electoral agreement that was signed on Thursday 23 November 1995 in Inverness by the Liberal Democrats and the Labour party stated:
    "The Scottish Labour party and the Scottish Liberal Democrats formally agree to accept the principle that there should be an equal number of men and women as Members of the first Scottish Parliament. In order to achieve the aims the parties agree and commit themselves to a number of measures."
    There was no caveat about the Sex Discrimination Act or the equal treatment directive. It was simply an electoral agreement that was entered into, I think, in good faith. It still exists and I hope that, even after the debacle of the conference at the weekend, the Liberal Democrats will stand strong on the issue, fight for equal representation and not hide behind the cloak of lack of legislation to defend their position.
    Mr. Wallace: May I take this opportunity to renew my commitment that we shall try to achieve gender balance in our parliamentary party within the law? As I have said, we have also committed a substantial sum to encourage and pay costs for women candidates seeking selection. I wonder whether the Labour party has done that.
    Mr. McLeish: I hope that the spirit of that intervention conflicts with and contradicts a comment that appeared in The Observer at the weekend, that
    "the proposal"—
    equal representation—
    "received the strongest criticism from other females. Moyra Forrest, a fellow Edinburgh councillor, accused MacLaren of dirty tricks and attempting to hijack the conference. 'If the women candidates are any good, they will emerge from the selection process,' she said.
    'As a party, we do not practise discrimination and so we cannot be unfair to men in this fashion.'"
    I hope that the Liberal Democrats are back on course. The weekend's discussions did not help. The Labour Government and the Labour party are committed to seeing equal representation in the Parliament.
    1146
    We have heard from the Liberal Democrats and from the Conservatives, but the Scottish National party is conspicuous by its absence on this issue.
    Mr. Salmond: On a point of order, Sir Alan. You know that I was rising during the debate. Is it in order for the Minister to criticise me when a time limit prevented me from speaking?
    The Chairman: What the Minister says is entirely a matter for him. The Chair has called hon. Members in order, but there has not been an opportunity to call any hon. Member from the Scottish National party.
    Mr. McLeish: I sincerely hope that, in the variety of ways available to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), he makes his party's position clear. The Labour party, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats have spoken up and we await the views of the SNP on the issue.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I am not sure whether the Minister has finished or is giving way to me. I should like to make the point—
    The Chairman: Order. Unfortunately, the matter is resolved.
    It being five hours and forty minutes after the commencement of proceedings in Committee, THE CHAIRMAN, pursuant to the Order [13 January] and the Resolution [30 March], put the Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
    Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 38, Noes 272.

    Division No. 237]

    [10.20 pm

    AYES

    Allan, Richard

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Baker, Norman

    Livsey, Richard

    Ballard, Mrs Jackie

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

    Brake, Tom

    Moore, Michael

    Brand, Dr Peter

    Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

    Breed, Colin

    Oaten, Mark

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Rendel, David

    Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

    Salmond, Alex

    Cotter Brian

    Sanders, Adrian

    Cunningham, Ms Roseanna

    Stunell, Andrew

    (Perth)

    Swinney, John

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    Tyler, Paul

    Fearn, Ronnie

    Wallace, James

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Welsh, Andrew

    George, Andrew (St Ives)

    Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

    Harris, Dr Evan

    Willis, Phil

    Harvey, Nick

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Mr. Donald Gorrie and Sir Robert Smith.

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

    NOES

    Ainger, Nick

    Banks, Tony

    Alexander, Douglas

    Barnes, Harry

    Allen, Graham

    Bayley, Hugh

    Armstrong, Ms Hilary

    Beard, Nigel

    Ashton, Joe

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Austin, John

    Benton, Joe

    1147

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Gardiner, Barry

    Betts, Clive

    George, Bruce (Walsall S)

    Blackman, Liz

    Gerard, Neil

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Boateng, Paul

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Goggins, Paul

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Brinton, Mrs Helen

    Gordon, Mrs Eileen

    Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Browne, Desmond

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Grogan, John

    Byers, Stephen

    Gunnell, John

    Caborn, Richard

    Hain, Peter

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Cann, Jamie

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Casale, Roger

    Hanson, David

    Caton, Martin

    Healey, John

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Clapham, Michael

    Hepburn, Stephern

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Heppell, John

    Clark, Dr Lynda

    Hesford, Stephen

    (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Hill Keith

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Hodge, Ms Margaret

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Home Robertson, John

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Hood, Jimmy

    Clelland, David

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Coaker, Vernon

    Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

    Coleman, Iain

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Colman, Tony

    Howells, Dr Kim

    Connarty, Michael

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Cooper, Yvette

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Hutton, John

    Corston, Ms Jean

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Cousins, Jim

    Ingram, Adam

    Cranston, Ross

    Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

    Crausby, David

    Jamieson, David

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    Jenkins, Brian

    Cummings, John

    Johnson, Miss Melanie

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Dafis, Cynog

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Davidson, Ian

    Jowell, Ms Tessa

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

    Kelly, Ms Ruth

    Dawson, Hilton

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Khabra, Piara S

    Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

    Kidney, David

    Dismore, Andrew

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Donohoe, Brian H

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

    Doran, Frank

    Kingham, Ms Tess

    Dowd, Jim

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Drew, David

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Drown, Ms Julia

    Lepper, David

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Leslie, Christopher

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Levitt, Tom

    Edwards, Huw

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Efford, Clive

    Linton, Martin

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Lock, David

    Etherington, Bill

    Love, Andrew

    Fatchett, Derek

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Field, Rt Hon Frank

    McCabe, Steve

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    McCafferty, Ms Chris

    Fitzsimons, Lorna

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Flint, Caroline

    Macdonald, Calum

    Flynn, Paul

    McFall, John

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    McIsaac, Shona

    Foulkes, George

    McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

    Galbraith, Sam

    McLeish, Henry

    Galloway, George

    McNamara, Kevin

    1148

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    McWalter, Tony

    Skinner, Dennis

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    Mallaber, Judy

    Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Smith, Miss Geraldine

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Martlew, Eric

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Meale, Alan

    Soley, Clive

    Michael, Alun

    Southworth, Ms Helen

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    Spellar, John

    Miller, Andrew

    Squire, Ms Rachel

    Mitchell, Austin

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    Moffatt, Laura

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Stevenson, George

    Moran, Ms Margaret

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Morley, Elliot

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

    Mudie, George

    Straw, Rt Hon Jack

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Stringer, Graham

    Norris, Dan

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    (Dewsbury)

    O'Neill, Martin

    Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Pearson, Ian

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Pendry, Tom

    Timms, Stephen

    Perham, Ms Linda

    Todd, Mark

    Pickthall, Colin

    Touhig, Don

    Pike, Peter L

    Trickett, Jon

    Pope, Greg

    Truswell, Paul

    Pound, Stephen

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Powell, Sir Raymond

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Purchase, Ken

    Watts, David

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    White, Brian

    Radice, Giles

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Rapson, Syd

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan

    Raynsford, Nick

    (Swansea W)

    Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

    Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Rogers, Allan

    Winnick, David

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Roy, Frank

    Wise, Audrey

    Ruane, Chris

    Woolas, Phil

    Ruddock, Ms Joan

    Worthington, Tony

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    Wray, James

    Ryan, Ms Joan

    Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

    Salter, Martin

    Wyatt, Derek

    Sawford, Phil

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Sheerman, Barry

    Mr. Robert Ainsworth and Janet Anderson.

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Mr. Wallace: On a point of order, Sir Alan. It is a Standing Order, or an expectation, that one's vote should follow one's voice. Is it not also the case that one's vote should follow one's speech? If so, perhaps those hon. Members who spoke in favour of new clause 9 could explain why they did not vote for it.
    The Chairman: The hon. and learned Gentleman is simply wrong in his interpretation of the Standing Orders.
    Mr. Salmond: On a point of order, Sir Alan. During the vote, I observed the Minister in animated conversation with some of his hon. Friends. I do not know whether he

    1149
    was trying to persuade them to abstain or to vote against their principles, but should he be trying to persuade them at all?
    The Chairman: That is not unknown.
    Mrs. Fyfe: On a point of order, Sir Alan. As I am sure you will confirm, had we not run out of time, I was going to explain why I would have withdrawn the motion, because—
    The Chairman: Order. The hon. Lady knows that that is not a point of order. There was an opportunity for her to rise; she did not do so, and therefore did not catch my eye.

  New clause 28

    REGISTER OF CONCORDATS
    '(1) There shall be a register of concordats where each concordat shall be registered.

    (2) The register shall be held by:—

    (a) the Public Record Office, and

    (b) the Keeper of the Records of Scotland.

    (3) A concordat shall be registered under subsection (1) above within four weeks of its execution.

    (4) No Minister of the Crown shall enter into a concordat with the Scottish Executive unless a draft of the concordat has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, both Houses of Parliament.

    (5) In this section "concordat" means any agreement between a Minister of the Crown and the Scottish Executive regarding the consultation arrangements and common United Kingdom guidelines in respect of:—

    (a) any reserved matter under schedule 5,

    (b) any devolved matter under section 29(4),

    (c) any transfer of ministerial functions under section 49,

    (d) any functions exercisable by agreement under section 51,

    (e) any shared power under section 52,

    (f) any cross—border public body under sections 83, 84 and 85, and

    (g) any agency arrangements under section 87.'.—[Mr. Ancram.]

    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Ancram: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    I did not realised that new clause 24 had not been moved.
    The Chairman: It was a simple matter of running out of time. The time has elapsed, so we have moved on.
    Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to you, Sir Alan. I am learning how these new business programme motions work and I am still trying to work out what time we lose and when.
    I am moving the new clause because, over the past three months, we have discovered increasing evidence of the concordat—a new phenomenon in our constitutional and political life. It arose originally in respect of an agreement on inward investment being sought among the Department of Trade and Industry, the Scottish Office and the Welsh Office, but since then it has found new provenance in relation to many matters arising out of the devolution legislation affecting Scotland and Wales.
    1150
    The Opposition consider that it is necessary to find out precisely what is happening, what the concordats will involve and how we can keep some check on their number. I am not certain what a collection of concordats will be called—possibly a canon of concordats or a collective of concordats. [Interruption.] I hear a suggestion that it should be a charm of concordats.
    The new clause seeks to find a means of registering the concordats, so that the House of Commons can be aware of what they are and what they involve, and to establish a way in which the approval of the House—and, if necessary, the Scottish Parliament—can be sought for them so that they have a provenance greater than just the agreement of those who jointly sign them.
    Mr. McAllion: How can the right hon. Gentleman hope to find out what a concordat between the Scottish Parliament and the Westminster Parliament will contain when the Scottish Parliament does not yet exist and cannot agree to any such concordat? In any case, I should have thought that, as Scotland's leading Roman Catholic, the right hon. Gentleman would know all about concordats. Does he not recall the concordats that the papacy entered into with Mussolini and Hitler?
    Mr. Ancram: That is why I suggested that they might be called a canon of concordats. That is very much in line with the hon. Gentleman's thought process. He makes the first mistake that demonstrates the need for the new clause: he talks about a concordat between the Scottish Parliament and the Westminster Parliament. One thing that we do know about concordats is that they are not between Parliaments. The new clause would give Parliament the right to approve concordats before they were made. Although it is not in the new clause, I would be easy with the idea of replicating that in relation to the Scottish Parliament so that both Parliaments were involved in making the concordats.
    Dr. Godman: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the need to obtain the support of the Scottish Parliament as well as of both Houses of Parliament at Westminster. Should not subsection (4) of the new clause have read "and approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament and the Scottish Parliament"? Would that not have made better sense than the present wording?
    Mr. Ancram: That is precisely what I said before the hon. Gentleman intervened. Obviously, he was not listening. I said that there would be some sense in applying the new clause also to the Scottish Parliament, but that might be a matter for the Scottish Parliament when it draws up its own rules.
    The purpose of the new clause is to give greater provenance to the concordats than appears to be the case, as far as we are aware. We do not know very much about them, partly because, as the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) said, there is not yet a Scottish Parliament with which to make them, although my understanding is that the concordats are already in draft or are being drafted on a contingency basis, allowing the Scottish Parliament or Administration to sign up to them. That may be because the Secretary of State and the

    1151
    Minister of State see themselves as playing leading roles in the Scottish Parliament and believe that they will sign the concordats, although that too may not happen.
    Mr. McAllion: Surely, no matter what may be drawn up on a contingency basis, it would have to be agreed to by the Scottish Parliament and might be completely revised once the Scottish Parliament had been consulted.
    Mr. Ancram: Absolutely. I am not asking what will be in each concordat. I want to know the nature of the concordats. I want to find a way of ensuring that they are registered.
    The Scottish Office provided us with a note about concordats on 27 February in answer to a written question. That gives us some information, but it leaves many questions unanswered. My strike rate in obtaining answers to questions during the passage of the Bill has not been high. I hope to be a bit more fortunate this time, as we come to the end of the Committee stage.
    The document is called "Guidance on Concordats Between the Scottish Executive and UK Government Departments". It says that the purpose
    "is to preserve the good working relationships which currently exist and ensure that the business of Government in Scotland and Wales and at the UK level is conducted smoothly and efficiently after devolution".
    It goes on:
    "Their purpose is not"—
    the word "not" is underlined—
    "to create legal obligations or restrictions on any party; rather, they will set the ground rules for administrative co-operation and exchange of information."
    We have heard about concordats that will be made on the arrangements for Scotland's voice to be heard in Europe and possible concordats to deal with negotiations on financial provisions for the Scottish Parliament and Welsh assembly. The Scottish Office note says not that concordats will do more than merely preserve good working relationships, but that
    "Other, less formal, arrangements will be appropriate in many cases, and in others there will be no need for any standing arrangements at all."
    As I understand it, the concordats will have no legal backing—I shall come back to that—but yesterday we were told that they would be the basis on which Scotland could be assured that its voice would be heard in the councils of the European Union.
    The Scottish Office note continues:
    "one concordat—if required—might be prepared to cover in each case a wide range of the subjects covered by each of the current Scottish Office Departments or Welsh Office Divisions. This might relate to the business of the whole Department or Division or that covered by the management level immediately below that".
    I do not understand what that means. With whom would such a concordat be made? It would merely register what happened in a Department.
    I am even more alarmed that
    "a different approach … is that of having an overarching concordat"—
    1152
    those are not my words, but those of the paper
    "between the Scottish Executive/Welsh Assembly and each Whitehall Department with a series of subsidiary concordats underneath that."
    How many subsidiary concordats do the Government envisage? How many overarching concordats with a pyramid of subsidiary concordats beneath it will there be?
    The note continues:
    "in one or two cases an overarching agreement might be needed involving a number of Whitehall Departments dealing with working arrangements".
    Emergency planning is given as an example. We are told later that,
    "in most cases, concordats will be bilateral".
    but occasionally it may be sensible to have trilateral concordats. How many Departments can be involved in the concordats?
    We are then told that there is another animal—as if we do not have enough concordats running around the jungle. A separate memorandum of understanding may be needed on particular cross-border public bodies. What is the difference between a memorandum of understanding, a subsidiary concordat and an overarching concordat? What is the nature of them, what will they do and what role will the House of Commons have in ensuring that they are suitable?
    I am concerned about the role of the House of Commons, because the following paragraph is entitled "Who signs concordats?" We are told not that they will always be signed by Ministers from each Administration, accountable to their Parliaments, but that
    "Normally, concordats would be signed at senior official level, but if concordats concern politically sensitive issues they might"—
    not will
    "be signed by UK Ministers and Scottish Ministers or their Welsh counterparts."
    What will be the criteria to decide who signs them? Will their effect vary according to the signatories? Will a concordat signed by a Minister on behalf of his Government automatically come to an end in the event of a change of Government? Will concordats on technical matters signed by officials, who are unchanging, remain in force regardless of a change of Government? We need to know more about that.
    I shall not bore the Committee with a long list of all the issues in the paper; suffice it to say that there is a paradox in the description of concordats. On one hand, they are unimportant and technical and aim merely to work out or provide for working relationships between Departments; on the other hand, they will be used to put in place enormously important matters such as the representation of Scotland in Europe. It is therefore important that we have greater understanding of them.
    I have searched throughout the paper to find where provision for European representation will be made, but I can find only one reference to Europe. It comes under the heading "Common provisions", of which there are many. One of them relates to
    "exchange of information, including policy papers",
    so the concordats cannot exactly be high-powered. However, a little further on, we find the phrase "arrangements for liaison"—not representation—
    "on EU and international matters".

    1153
    Is that the basis on which we were asked yesterday to be assured that Scotland's voice will be heard powerfully in the councils of Europe?
    10.45 pm
    Mr. Dewar: Dear, dear.
    Mr. Ancram: The Secretary of State says, "Dear, dear," but he was the one who said yesterday that we do not need to stipulate such matters in the Bill because they will all be governed by concordat. If that is so, we have a right to know the basis of the concordats. They cover any financial arrangements; the whole question of Scotland's financing after devolution will be covered by the phrase relating to concordats, which are not based in any parliamentary provision, but are purely agreements made between two Administrations, and—as we understand it—normally signed by officials.
    That brings me to questions to which we need answers tonight. We are told that concordats will be non-statutory; they are not intended to be legally enforceable contracts between the parties. I find that hard to understand. An agreement is a contract. Normally, from an agreement flow legal consequences. Will the concordats be justiciable in any form? What happens if somebody's rights are affected by either the making or the breaching of the concordat? Is that person entitled to go to court? Can he ask for judicial review? Can he ask for a finding of breach of contract because an agreement that he has made with somebody else has been broken? It is all very well writing on a bit of paper that such concordats are not legally enforceable, but they must have some provenance in law. We are not told what it is. To rely on something that is stated as having no legal enforceability in order to provide for vital Scottish interests seems to be less than appropriate.
    Are the concordats of any legal value? Are they unilaterally capable of being breached? Am I right in thinking that one side can just say that it has decided not to continue with a concordat and that there is no remedy available if that should happen? What is the current example of a concordat? I understand from the paper that there are to be concordats between several Departments to regulate their relationships. Can we see the sort of concordats used at the moment—if they exist—so that we can have some idea of what such animals will look like? Who decides what is an overarching concordat? What is a concordat that is big enough to carry the type of representation in Europe and the type of financial provision that will need to be made? Who will decide when concordats are merely technical and are to govern relationships between officials?
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: My right hon. Friend has obviously analysed the provisions carefully. Is there any provision to enable the House of Commons, either now or at any time in future, to scrutinise or debate the content of concordats?
    Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. There is nothing to that effect in the provisions as stated on the piece of paper with which we were provided as a result of a written question, but new clause 28 says:
    "A concordat shall be registered under subsection (1) … within four weeks of its execution.
    1154
    No Minister of the Crown shall enter into a concordat with the Scottish Executive unless a draft of the concordat has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, both Houses of Parliament."
    That is important in establishing that concordats have some provenance in the democratic institution of the United Kingdom House of Commons.
    Mr. Grieve: Does the information say whether, if a concordat were made and a private individual in reliance on it carried out an action, he would have a remedy by way of judicial review if the concordat were breached?
    Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for asking that question. As I said earlier, I am looking for an answer to such questions. The paper merely says that the contract is non-statutory and not legally enforceable. There must be some remedy available against the breach of an agreement that is not a pactum illicitum—and there is no sign that such agreements are pacta illicita.
    We need a reassurance about the concordats. They are the equivalent of what in America are called Executive agreements, the purpose of which is to bypass the need for Congress to scrutinise and agree treaties. Executive agreements are a means of bypassing the legislature. I am concerned by the fact that we are putting in place a process that could over time multiply in a big way. Literally hundreds of concordats could be signed by junior officials in Departments; yet, as things stand, there is no scrutiny of them in the House of Commons and no means of knowing what and where they are—[Interruption.]
    The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. There are too many conversations going on in the Committee.
    Mr. Ancram: I shall finish on the following point, Mr. Martin. My new clause is designed to ensure that a register of the concordats is kept so that we know what they are and what they do. It also asks for the House of Commons and the other place to be given the right to approve them, to give them a basis in our constitution.
    Mr. Dalyell: We have now come very near to the epicentre of the Bill, and we are on sensitive ground. This is part of the difficulty of having a subordinate Parliament in part—and only part—of a unitary state. Because of the lack of time, I have only one question for the Secretary of State and the Minister of State. When they have flown the coop, and are away from the House of Commons and installed in Holyrood, if they are Ministers, will they not expect the absolute loyalty of the civil servants who work for them, draft the concordats and do the day-to-day work?
    To whom will those civil servants be finally responsible? Will they be responsible to Ministers in Holyrood or will they be part of the home civil service? Will they be ultimately responsible to the head of the home civil service—Sir Richard Wilson, or whoever his successor may be?
    There is a real dilemma here. Civil servants have to be responsible to one so-called "master"—although I do not particularly like the word. They cannot serve two masters. In that situation, they may have to choose. I ask simply: what will the choice for the civil service be? Will civil

    1155
    servants owe loyalty to Holyrood or to Westminster? If to Holyrood, that would represent the beginnings of the break-up of the British state.
    Mr. Salmond: The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) waited a long time—until the very last debate in Committee—to begin his filibuster on the Bill. He took an extravagant length of time to make a point that, although important, could have been made simply and directly.
    I have had some experience of the concordats, because some of them have fallen into my hands in a way that the Labour party used to relish in opposition, but deplores now that it is in government. One such was the concordat on inward investment, and in November I outlined its contents in an Adjournment debate.
    The hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) asked me whether I could give him a copy of the concordat, which put me in some difficulty, because, although I am committed to freedom of information, I am also committed to not helping the Tory party in any circumstances. There was therefore some tension, which I resolved by saying that I would place a copy in the Library.
    Unfortunately, when I went to the Library to deposit a copy, I was told that it was a leaked document, and the Library's instructions were not to accept leaked documents for the perusal of hon. Members. The hon. Member for Sevenoaks pleaded with me again and again, but I had to refuse him.
    I did put the concordat on the SNP internet site. If the right hon. Member for Devizes peruses that site, he will see a copy of the proposed concordat on inward investment which he is extremely anxious to see. It has been on that site for the best part of two months. I do not want to pursue how computer literate the right hon. Gentleman is, but he should get back to his office, dial it up as quickly as possible and print out a hard copy so he has it in front of him for the next debate.
    My second experience of concordats was with the MAFF concordat on agriculture and fisheries with the Scottish Office. I received the concordat and some correspondence surrounding the negotiations on bringing forward the concordat. Significantly, memos from the Scottish Office said that the prime aim of MAFF in the negotiations was to preserve its position as the lead Department in agriculture and fisheries matters. As if by magic, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), has materialised on the Government Front Bench to confirm that point. That is very interesting.
    Yesterday, in the debate on Europe, the Secretary of State for Scotland, no less, told us that the Scottish Ministers would have the opportunity to lead on agriculture and fisheries matters in the new arrangements. How fortuitous it is to have the Parliamentary Secretary on the Front Bench tonight—he was not here yesterday—to tell us that MAFF' s objective in the concordat is to preserve its position as the lead Department in the UK. I smell a rat, and all concordats on fish, agriculture, cows and other things should be published.
    1156
    The very last point I want to make—
    Mr. Davidson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Salmond: No. I would love to give way to hon. Gentleman who, in his former constituency, had one farmer—I remember that from a previous speech. I want to ask the Minister a question which even the hon. Gentleman would not be able to answer, and I want to give the Minister two or three minutes to answer. In a previous parliamentary debate, I was told unambiguously that these concordats would not come into operation until the Scottish Parliament itself came into being. There is a suggestion going around Scotland that the concordat on inward investment will be implemented this summer. I want an unambiguous assurance from the Minister that no concordat will come into operation until the Scottish Executive—whoever that may be—is in a position to judge if that concordat is in the best interests of the Scottish people.
    Mr. Davidson: Could I clarify whether the list of concordats in which the Scottish National party is interested includes the letter to Ian Lang, as was, from Margaret Ewing—headed "Dear Ian" and signed, "Love and kisses, Margaret"—when they were carving up the seats on one of the European commissions? Is that the sort of thing that the Scottish National party has in mind—because, if I remember correctly, it was not keen on having that made public at the time?
    Mr. Hogg: I wish to build on the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). It is plain from the discussion that the concordats are intended to regularise the relationship between Edinburgh and London. Inevitably, that will occasionally involve a shift in responsibility from London to Edinburgh. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) mentioned an example in relation to agriculture and fisheries. Surely this House should have an opportunity to decide whether or not we wish to approve a movement of responsibility from London to Edinburgh. There may be a good cause for that, but one thing is certain—this House must and should have the opportunity to debate it. Is the Minister proposing such a debate? If he is not making provision for such a debate, why not?
    Dr. Godman: I promise to be brief. May I respond to what the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) has just said? If this House and the other place have to give approval, why not the Scottish Parliament? That also responds to the point made by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond).
    The new clause is inadequate, and offensive to those who are seeking to become Members of the Scottish Parliament. I might have had some sympathy with the new clause if subsection (4) had included a reference to seeking the approval of the Scottish Parliament. As it stands, it reflects normal parliamentary practice in seeking approval.
    Mr. Ancram: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    11 pm
    Dr. Godman: I promise that I shall give way in a moment.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is painting a gloomy picture of developments and talking about the unravelling of the United Kingdom. I offer a general comment that relates, I think, to the new clause. We are engaged in the radical changing of our constitution. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) would agree with me when I say that I hope fervently that within a short period we shall be debating in this place the setting up of a Northern Ireland assembly, along with developments elsewhere that you, Mr. Martin, would not allow me to discuss in detail.
    It would be interesting to hear what the right hon. Gentleman has to say about the devolution of powers to such an assembly. He talks about hundreds of concordats, but I would say that there will have to be terms of agreement involving what has been described as a subordinate Parliament. We are changing the constitution of the United Kingdom, as I have said. We have the Welsh assembly, and the Scottish Parliament is on the stocks. We may soon have a Northern Ireland assembly on the parliamentary stocks.
    Some of the right hon. Gentleman's criticisms are legitimate, as are some of those made by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, particularly in relation to the fishing industry. This will never happen, but were I to be the Government spokesman for fisheries in the Scottish Parliament—
    Mr. Salmond: Is the hon. Gentleman volunteering?
    Dr. Godman: No, I am not.
    With respect, I think that I have known the fishing industry longer than any other Member. My mother was a fishergirl, as was her mother, who came from Aberdeen. I made my first trip to the Arctic when I was 12; I stowed away on a trawler. I know something about the industry.
    Were I to become the Fisheries Minister in Scotland, I would expect to play an equal role with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. My hon. Friend is, of course, a first-class Fisheries Minister. It is easy for me to say as a Back-Bench Member—I see the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan nodding—but as a team of Ministers going to a meeting of the Council of Fisheries, it is up to the member state to determine the roles played by the—
    Mr. Salmond: A few minutes ago the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was nodding—the Committee saw him doing so—when I said that he was trying to have that Department as the lead Department. The Minister nodded when he said that it would be a position of equality. In the space—
    The First Deputy Chairman: Order. That has nothing to do with the matters that are before us.
    Dr. Godman: I shall not allow the hon. Gentleman to lead me astray, Mr. Martin.
    Mr. Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. My intervention was related directly to the contents of concordats, which we are debating. If you would reflect on the matter, Mr. Martin—
    The First Deputy Chairman: The hon. Gentleman was referring to a Member nodding to someone else. I shall not allow that to enter into the proceedings when the Committee is dealing with a far more serious matter.
    Dr. Godman: I shall behave myself, Mr. Martin.
    1158
    We are dealing with important matters, especially for the fishing industry and for inward investment. I believe that the Scottish Parliament will need to be encouraged to develop its modus operandi, and the two Parliaments will have to develop the modus vivendi to diminish the chance of stress and conflict between them. That is where the concordats come in. They can be arranged harmoniously among the Departments in this multinational state of ours.
    Mrs. Laing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Dr. Godman: I am sorry; I do not have time. I beg the hon. Lady's forgiveness. I shall not be churlish enough to admit that she did not give way to me earlier. That is another point.
    When the right hon. Member for Devizes was at the Scottish Office, there must have been times when agreements had to be reached among a number of Departments—the Scottish Office, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and the Department of Transport. I believe that concordats can achieve a good relationship between the Parliaments.
    Mr. McAllion: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman), I will not allow myself to be led astray by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). I find it far too easy to lead myself astray, without other people helping me to do it.
    I was interested to hear that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan has a leaked copy of a concordat on inward investment. As he may know, the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs is about to conduct an inquiry into inward investment. If the Clerks to the Committee are not able to accept the leaked copy, I shall certainly accept it on their behalf—
    Mr. Grieve rose—
    Mr. McAllion: No, I do not have time.
    I am surprised that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan is surprised that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food should attempt to defend its position as the lead authority. I hope that the equivalent Department in the Scottish Parliament will try to defend its position as the lead authority. That is how politics works. I do not think that we should be bothered with that.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) always overstates his case—he probably thinks the same about me—but when he says that this matter is the epicentre of the Bill, I think that there is some truth in that. He said that civil servants cannot operate with two masters, and in a sense that is what we have to come to terms with in the devolution process. From here on in there cannot be one master. The Bill changes for ever the United Kingdom constitution as we knew it. We have to learn anew how to work together with the devolved Parliament and a Parliament at the UK level. The concordats will play a part in that. I look forward to my hon. Friend the Minister's explanation.
    Mr. McLeish: Let me assure the Committee that the proposed concordats between the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Executive will not make provision in respect of matters that should properly be covered in the Bill. Nor will they be a sinister means to

    1159
    avoid parliamentary scrutiny. [Interruption.] From a sedentary position, the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) says, "Come off it." His strike rate has been abysmally low throughout the eight days of the Bill's consideration in Committee, so his chances of increasing it are quite remote.
    As the guidance note that we made available on 27 February made clear, the purpose of concordats would be to promote effective communication and good administrative practice in relations between UK Government Departments and the Scottish Executive. That will be in the interest of all parties. The agreements are not intended to be legally binding. Unless it would cause substantial harm on one of the clearly defined grounds set out in the recent White Paper on freedom of information, the agreements will be published.
    Work on draft concordats will proceed before devolution, but they cannot be agreed until the Scottish Executive is established. The coverage of each agreement would be a matter for the Scottish Executive and the UK Government to agree. Likely common topics include consultation arrangements in relation to proposals for legislation and Executive action; exchange of policy papers, analysis and statistics; participation in working groups and official committees; liaison on EU and international matters; and, of course, consultation about UK or GB public bodies.
    It is important to stress that no concordats have yet been published, for the simple reason that work is still at an early stage. Draft agreements will be published in due course when they are available, although it is too early to say when or how many there will be.
    The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) made the point, and I want to reinforce the response again, that agreements cannot be made until the Scottish Executive is up and running, and it should be clear that draft agreements cannot in any way be considered to be binding on it.
    I hope that in the light of these comments, the new clause will be withdrawn.
    Mr. Ancram: I listened to hear one single answer to one single question that I asked. I heard none. [Interruption.] The guidance note does not answer the questions, which is why I asked them. Having received no answers, I shall not withdraw the new clause, and I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to support me.
    Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 120, Noes 272.

    Division No. 238]

    [11.8 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

    Amess, David

    Brady, Graham

    Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

    Brazier, Julian

    Arbuthnot, James

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Burns, Simon

    Baldry, Tony

    Butterfill, John

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Cash, William

    Body, Sir Richard

    Chope, Christopher

    Boswell, Tim

    Clappison, James

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

    1160

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

    Loughton, Tim

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

    Luff, Peter

    (Rushcliffe)

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Collins, Tim

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    MacKay, Andrew

    Curry, Rt Hon David

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Day, Stephen

    Moss, Malcolm

    Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

    Norman, Archie

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    Ottaway, Richard

    Evans, Nigel

    Page, Richard

    Faber, David

    Paice, James

    Fabricant, Michael

    Paterson, Owen

    Fallon, Michael

    Pickles, Eric

    Flight, Howard

    Prior, David

    Forth, Rt Hon Eric

    Randall, John

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Fox, Dr Liam

    Robathan, Andrew

    Fraser, Christopher

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)

    Gale, Roger

    Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

    Garnier, Edward

    Ruffley, David

    Gibb, Nick

    St Aubyn, Nick

    Gill, Christopher

    Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

    Soames, Nicholas

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Gray, James

    Spring, Richard

    Green, Damian

    Steen, Anthony

    Greenway, John

    Swayne, Desmond

    Grieve, Dominic

    Syms, Robert

    Gummer, Rt Hon John

    Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Hawkins, Nick

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Hayes, John

    Tredinnick, David

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Trend, Michael

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Horam, John

    Viggers, Peter

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Walter, Robert

    Hunter, Andrew

    Wardle, Charles

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Wells, Bowen

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Whitney, Sir Raymond

    Johnson Smith,

    Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

    Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Wilkinson, John

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Willetts, David

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    Woodward, Shaun

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Yeo, Tim

    Leigh, Edward

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Letwin, Oliver

    Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Lidington, David

    Mr. Oliver Heald and Mr. Nigel Waterson.

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    NOES

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Ainger, Nick

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Alexander, Douglas

    Brake, Tom

    Allan, Richard

    Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

    Allen, Graham

    Browne, Desmond

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Armstrong, Ms Hilary

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Burnett, John

    Austin, John

    Byers, Stephen

    Baker, Norman

    Caborn, Richard

    Banks, Tony

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Barnes, Harry

    Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

    Bayley, Hugh

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Beard, Nigel

    Canavan, Dennis

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Cann, Jamie

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Casale, Roger

    Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

    Caton, Martin

    Benton, Joe

    Chidgey, David

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Betts, Clive

    Clapham, Michael

    Blackman, Liz

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Clark, Dr Lynda

    1161

    (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Home Robertson, John

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Hood, Jimmy

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

    Clelland, David

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Clwyd, Ann

    Howells, Dr Kim

    Coaker, Vernon

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Colman, Tony

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Connarty, Michael

    Hutton, John

    Cooper, Yvette

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

    Corston, Ms Jean

    Jamieson, David

    Cotter, Brian

    Jenkins, Brian

    Cousins, Jim

    Johnson, Miss Melanie

    Cranston, Ross

    (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Crausby, David

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Cummings, John

    Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Jones, Marlyn (Clwyd S)

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Dalyell, Tam

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Davidson, Ian

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

    Khabra, Piara S

    Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

    Kidney, David

    Dawson, Hilton

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Kingham, Ms Tess

    Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Dismore, Andrew

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Doran, Frank

    Lawrence, Ms Jackie

    Dowd, Jim

    Lepper, David

    Drew, David

    Leslie, Christopher

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Levitt, Tom

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Edwards, Huw

    Linton, Martin

    Efford, Clive

    Livsey, Richard

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Lock, David

    Etherington, Bill

    Love, Andrew

    Fatchett, Derek

    McAllion, John

    Fearn, Ronnie

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Field, Rt Hon Frank

    McCabe, Steve

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    McCafferty, Ms Chris

    Fitzsimons, Lorna

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Flint, Caroline

    Macdonald, Calum

    Flynn, Paul

    McFall, John

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    McIsaac, Shona

    Foulkes, George

    McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

    Fyfe, Maria

    McLeish, Henry

    Galbraith, Sam

    McNamara, Kevin

    Galloway, George

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Gardiner, Barry

    McWalter, Tony

    George, Andrew (St Ives)

    Mallaber, Judy

    George, Bruce (Walsall S)

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Gerrard, Neil

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    Martlew, Eric

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Meale, Alan

    Goggins, Paul

    Michael, Alun

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    Gordon, Mrs Eileen

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

    Gorrie, Donald

    Miller, Andrew

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Mitchell, Austin

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Moffatt, Laura

    Grogan, John

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Moore, Michael

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Moran, Ms Margaret

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

    Hanson, David

    Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Morley, Elliot

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Heppell, John

    Mudie, George

    Hesford, Stephen

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Hill, Keith

    Norris, Dan

    1162

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Stott, Roger

    O'Neill, Martin

    Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

    Osborne, Ms Sandra

    Stringer, Graham

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Pearson, Ian

    Stunell, Andrew

    Pendry, Tom

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Perham, Ms Linda

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

    Pickthall, Colin

    (Dewsbury)

    Pike, Peter L

    Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

    Pope, Greg

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Pound, Stephen

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Timms, Stephen

    Purchase, Ken

    Todd, Mark

    Rapson, Syd

    Touhig, Don

    Raynsford, Nick

    Trickett, Jon

    Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

    Truswell, Paul

    Rendel, David

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Rogers, Allan

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Roy, Frank

    Tyler, Paul

    Ruane, Chris

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Ruddock, Ms Joan

    Wallace, James

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Ryan, Ms Joan

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Watts, David

    Sawford, Phil

    White, Brian

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Skinner, Dennis

    Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Willis, Phil

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Winnick, David

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

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Snape, Peter

    Wise, Audrey

    Soley, Clive

    Woolas, Phil

    Southworth, Ms Helen

    Worthington, Tony

    Spellar, John

    Wray, James

    Squire, Ms Rachel

    Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Mr. Kevin Hughes and Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    Question accordingly negatived.
    It being more than six and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee, THE CHAIRMAN, pursuant to the Order [13 January] and the Resolution [30 March], put the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
    Clause 110 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Schedules 7 and 8 agreed to.
    Clauses 111 to 113 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 114

    COMMENCEMENT
    Amendment made: No. 560, in page 52, line 13, leave out from beginning to 'shall' in line 14 and insert
    'Parts Ito V and sections 104 to 1l0'.—[Mr. McLeish.]
    Clause 114, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 115 and 116 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. Ancram: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. May I briefly but sincerely thank you and your fellow Chairmen for the admirable way in which you have conducted the Committee's proceedings? Through you, may I also thank the Clerks for their help during our proceedings?
    The First Deputy Chairman: I am obliged, and I shall inform my colleagues of the right hon. Gentleman's kind words.
    Bill reported, with amendments.
    Bill, as amended, to be considered tomorrow.

    DELEGATED LEGISLATION
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

    PENSIONS
    That the draft Social Security (Reduced Rates of Class 1 Contributions, and Rebates) (Money Purchase Contracted-out) Schemes Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 4th March, be approved.—[Mr. Pope.]
    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

    PENSIONS
    That the draft Social Security (Reduced Rates of Class 1 Contributions, and Rebates) (Money Purchase Contracted-out) Schemes Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 4th March, be approved.—[Mr. Pope.]
    The House divided: Ayes 271, Noes 119.

    Division No. 239]

    [11.24 pm

    AYES

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

    Clapham, Michael

    Ainger, Nick

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Alexander, Douglas

    Clark, Dr Lynda

    Allan, Richard

    (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Allen, Graham

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Austin, John

    Clelland, David

    Baker, Norman

    Clwyd, Ann

    Banks, Tony

    Coaker, Vernon

    Barnes, Harry

    Colman, Tony

    Bayley, Hugh

    Connarty, Michael

    Beard, Nigel

    Cooper, Yvette

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Corston, Ms Jean

    Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

    Cotter, Brian

    Benton, Joe

    Cousins, Jim

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Cranston, Ross

    Betts, Clive

    Crausby, David

    Blackman, Liz

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Cummings, John

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Brake, Tom

    Cunningham, Ms Roseanna

    Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

    (Perth)

    Browne, Desmond

    Dalyell, Tam

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Davidson, Ian

    Burnett, John

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Byers, Stephen

    Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

    Caborn, Richard

    Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Dawson, Hilton

    Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

    Canavan, Dennis

    Dismore, Andrew

    Cann, Jamie

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Casale, Roger

    Doran, Frank

    Caton, Martin

    Dowd, Jim

    Chidgey, David

    Drew, David

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    1164

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Linton, Martin

    Edwards, Huw

    Livsey, Richard

    Efford, Clive

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Love, Andrew

    Etherington, Bill

    McAllion, John

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Fatchett, Derek

    McCabe, Steve

    Fearn, Ronnie

    McCafferty, Ms Chris

    Field, Rt Hon Frank

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Macdonald, Calum

    Fitzsimons, Lorna

    McFall, John

    Flint, Caroline

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    McIsaac, Shona

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    McLeish, Henry

    Foulkes, George

    McNamara, Kevin

    Fyfe, Maria

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Galloway, George

    McWalter, Tony

    Gardiner, Barry

    Mallaber, Judy

    George, Andrew (St Ives)

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    George, Bruce (Walsall S)

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Gerrard, Neil

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Martlew, Eric

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    Meale, Alan

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Michael, Alun

    Goggins, Paul

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

    Gordon, Mrs Eileen

    Miller, Andrew

    Gorrie, Donald

    Mitchell, Austin

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Moffatt, Laura

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Grogan, John

    Moore, Michael

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Moran, Ms Margaret

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

    Hanson, David

    Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Morley, Elliot

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Heppell, John

    Mudie, George

    Hesford, Stephen

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Hill, Keith

    Norris, Dan

    Home Robertson, John

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Hood, Jimmy

    O'Neill, Martin

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Osborne, Ms Sandra

    Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Pearson, Ian

    Howells, Dr Kim

    Pendry, Tom

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Perham, Ms Linda

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Pickthall, Colin

    Hutton, John

    Pike, Peter L

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Pope, Greg

    Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

    Pound, Stephen

    Jamieson, David

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Jenkins, Brian

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Johnson, Miss Melanie

    Purchase, Ken

    (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Rapson, Syd

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Raynsford, Nick

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

    Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Rendel, David

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Rogers, Allan

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Roy, Frank

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Ruane, Chris

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

    Ruddock, Ms Joan

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    Khabra, Piara S

    Ryan, Ms Joan

    Kidney, David

    Salmond, Alex

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

    Sawford, Phil

    Kingham, Ms Tess

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Skinner, Dennis

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Lawrence, Ms Jackie

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Lepper, David

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

    Leslie, Christopher

    Snape, Peter

    Levitt, Tom

    Soley, Clive

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Southworth, Ms Helen

    1165

    Spellar, John

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Squire, Ms Rachel

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Tyler, Paul

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    Wallace, James

    Stott, Roger

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Stringer, Graham

    Watts, David

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    White, Brian

    Stunell, Andrew

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Swinney, John

    Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

    Willis, Phil

    (Dewsbury)

    Winnick, David

    Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Taylor, David (NWLeics)

    Wise, Audrey

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Woolas, Phil

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Wray, James

    Timms, Stephen

    Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

    Todd, Mark

    Touhig, Don

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Trickett, Jon

    Mr. Robert Ainsworth and Mr. Kevin Hughes.

    Truswell, Paul

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Gill, Christopher

    Amess, David

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

    Arbuthnot, James

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

    Gray, James

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Green, Damian

    Baldry, Tony

    Greenway, John

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Grieve, Dominic

    Body, Sir Richard

    Gummer, Rt Hon John

    Boswell, Tim

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Hawkins, Nick

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

    Hayes, John

    Brady, Graham

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Brazier, Julian

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Horam, John

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Burns, Simon

    Hunter, Andrew

    Butterfill, John

    Jack, Fit Hon Michael

    Cash, William

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Chope, Christopher

    Johnson Smith,

    Clappison, James

    Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    (Rushcliffe)

    Leigh, Edward

    Collins, Tim

    Letwin, Oliver

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

    Curry, Rt Hon David

    Lidington, David

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

    Loughton, Tim

    Day, Stephen

    Luff, Peter

    Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Evans, Nigel

    MacKay, Andrew

    Faber, David

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Fabricant, Michael

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Flight, Howard

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Forth, Rt Hon Eric

    Moss, Malcolm

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Norman, Archie

    Fox, Dr Liam

    Ottaway, Richard

    Fraser, Christopher

    Page, Richard

    Gale, Roger

    Paice, James

    Garnier, Edward

    Paterson, Owen

    Gibb, Nick

    Pickles, Eric

    1166

    Prior, David

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Randall, John

    Tredinnick, David

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Trend, Michael

    Robathan, Andrew

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)

    Viggers, Peter

    Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

    Walter, Robert

    Ruffley, David

    Wardle, Charles

    St Aubyn, Nick

    Wells, Bowen

    Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

    Whitney, Sir Raymond

    Simpson Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

    Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

    Wilkinson, John

    Soames, Nicholas

    Willetts, David

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Woodward, Shaun

    Spring, Richard

    Yeo, Tim

    Steen, Anthony

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Swayne, Desmond

    Syms, Robert

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

    Mr. Oliver Heald and Mr. Nigel Waterson.

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

    OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT AND CO-OPERATION
    That the draft International Development Association (Eleventh Replenishment) Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 20th February, be approved.—[Jane Kennedy.]
    Question agreed to.

  PETITION

    Xenotransplantation
    11.36 pm
    Mr. Norman Baker: I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of Uncaged Campaigns, an organisation that is based in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) and that opposes xenotransplantation—the use of animal organs for transplantation to humans.
    The petition comprises more than 100,000 signatures, which I hasten to say are not with me tonight, but which have been deposited at Downing street. The petition states:
    xenotransplantation …

    1) carries the grave risk of virus transferal from nonhuman animals to humans, raising the possibility of the unleashing of an epidemic amongst the human population;

    2) the likelihood of organ rejection amongst other complications, means that any recipients of nonhuman organs will suffer greatly;

    3) ignores more sensible and effective approaches to promoting health such as preventative health measures and increasing the pool of human donors.

    Furthermore we believe that treating nonhuman animals as "spare part" factories is immoral and inhumane.
    I am pleased to present the petition accordingly.
    To lie upon the Table.

    Sewage Treatment (South Coast)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jane Kennedy.]
    11.37 pm
    Dr. Desmond Turner: I raise a subject that is close to many people's hearts. I will try to avoid the obvious jokes; I will leave those to sedentary colleagues.
    In the early part of the 19th century, we used to have open sewers running down the streets of our cities. We have moved on a little since then, but, to a regrettable extent, we still treat our coastal waters as open sewers, so we have not got that far. Eleven per cent. of our population still have their sewage discharged from outfalls into the sea after nothing more than preliminary treatment, which, in practical terms, means that water companies pump out what could be described as thick coliform soup, but with odd bits in it, so it is a bit like minestrone.
    That is not a very sanitary practice. It is not very nice at all, and it constitutes a great public health risk. It is no pleasure to stand on the cliff at Portobello in my constituency and look out to sea. One can see the end of the outfall. If there is a gentle onshore breeze, the smell is not very nice.
    Mr. Norman Baker: It is the same in Newhaven.
    Dr. Turner: Yes, I am sure it is.
    As we approach the millennium, it is appalling that we still have the most primitive, unsanitary practices, which expose us to health hazards that would have been recognised by the Victorians. The irony is that we have the means to stop it. That is the important thing. We have the means, but we need the dedicated will.
    What are we to do? What is the next step? The European Union has made its contribution with the urban waste water treatment directive. If that were applied literally, it would mean that all our coastal sewage would be given at least secondary treatment. It would mean that my dearly beloved local water company, Southern Water, would have to meet the terms of that directive by 2000.
    That water company has submitted proposals to build a new plant at Portobello, and has promised secondary treatment. The chairman and managing director came to see me and my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper), and assured us that, at the very least, the company would put in secondary treatment. What we were not told was that, at the same time, it was trying to take advantage of a loophole in the directive, which is to seek derogation on the ground that sewage is being discharged into a high natural dispersion area. If that application is accepted and endorsed by the United Kingdom Government, only primary treatment will be needed.
    The designation of a high natural dispersion area is exclusive in the European Union to Portugal and the United Kingdom. One cannot compare the seas around Portugal with those around the UK. The seas around Portugal are genuine high natural dispersion areas because they are very deep. Our seas are very shallow. To describe the North sea and the English channel as high natural
    1168
    dispersion areas is foolish. When one examines the concentration of heavy metals in the North sea, it is clear that whatever goes into the North sea or the channel just stays there and gets washed around. The idea of dispersion is demonstrable nonsense.
    Dr. Alan Whitehead: Is my hon. Friend aware that the recent report on sewage treatment by the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs made the clear statement that the category of a high natural dispersion area should be abandoned immediately? It made that recommendation for the reasons mentioned by my hon. Friend. It also referred to the evidence of the Shellfish Association of Great Britain which mentioned, among other things, the Solent, which is in my part of the world.
    That association said that much of what was allegedly sent out to sea in a high natural dispersion area came back over the shellfish and made them difficult to market without rewashing. I strongly support my hon. Friend's suggestion that an area of high natural dispersion is not appropriate for Great Britain.
    Dr. Turner: I thank my hon. Friend for his timely intervention, with which I concur totally. I had planned on dealing with that Select Committee report in a moment, and I shall.
    The European Union has also produced a bathing water directive, which is slightly defective, as its mandatory guidelines are commonly breached in our bathing waters. Even the blue flag guideline figures—which, if met, allow a blue flag to be flown—are no guarantee that water is safe. The commonly monitored marker organisms are very misleading and do not provide an accurate picture of the public health hazard. The real, much more useful, marker is faecal streptococci, which is rarely measured. Attention has centred on the coliforms. Therefore, work has yet to be done on the bathing water directive itself.
    There is a new bathing water directive—unfortunately, it is not yet in force—which will make some progress on the problem, but not enough.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) observed, the Environment, Transport and the Regional Affairs Select Committee has just produced a report on sewage treatment and disposal. I congratulate the Select Committee on its very thorough report, and totally concur with its conclusions and recommendations. Although I take seriously all the report's conclusions and recommendations on how to deal with problems—each of which is worthy of a separate debate—two conclusions and recommendations are more relevant than the others to this debate.
    First, the report clearly recommends that, by 2002, tertiary treatment should be applied to sewage at all times and in all places. That target is entirely reasonable, physically obtainable and economically feasible.
    The report's second immediately pertinent recommendation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Test has already said, is that the category of high natural dispersion area should no longer be recognised in the United Kingdom.
    I hope that the Government will take very seriously those two clear recommendations.
    Dr. Ian Gibson: Does my hon. Friend agree that water companies are making vast profits

    1169
    and paying out huge dividends, and that they could well afford to foot the bill to deal with the issue themselves? Does he also agree that—according to Water Watch, a consumer organization—in the Anglian region, £46 of everyone's water bill is being paid to shareholders? Does he also agree that research commissioned by Surfers Against Sewage shows that, in the first five years since privatisation, the Office of Water Services, the regulator, has allowed the water industry to out-perform the FTSE 100 by 35 per cent.?
    Dr. Turner: I most certainly agree with my hon. Friend. The water industry's financial record is enviable, if one is a water company shareholder. Since privatization—in the years 1990–97—water companies have tucked away £2 billion in dividends alone. In that period, on average, they have been registering a 35 per cent. pre-tax profit, which is a massive profit margin. They are distributing 24 per cent. of their turnover in dividends. Therefore, 24 per cent. of everyone's water bill goes in dividends to shareholders.
    I find that quite objectionable. It far outstrips the performance of most companies. The privatised utilities are best described as a licence to print money. They do not face massive commercial risk. They are faced with the need for investment, but they have the turnover to be able to afford it without soaking the customer.
    Mr. David Lepper: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in towns such as Brighton, which he and I represent, where tourism is a vital part of the local economy, it is essential that residents and visitors should have every confidence that sea water is of the highest quality that modern technology can provide? In view of the figures that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) have mentioned, does he agree that our local water company, Southern Water, has a responsibility to help build that confidence for residents and tourists by investing now in the latest technology for water treatment, rather than waiting until forced to do so by directives from either the Government or the European Union?
    Dr. Turner: I wholly concur with my hon. Friend. Beside the cost of the plant, the extra cost of installing tertiary treatment to provide the standard of water discharge we want is relatively trivial. The cost of the proposed Portobello plant is £60 million, and it would cost a further £1.5 million to install ultra-violet treatment to provide a tertiary stage.
    That is trivial in relation to the overall sum involved. In terms of public appreciation, it would be a very good investment; and it would also be a very good investment for the economy of Brighton and Hove because it would mean we could have a coastline that not only qualified for a blue flag but was genuinely safe to swim from, surf on and use for various other water sports.
    Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: Does my hon. Friend accept that the biblical saying that one reaps what one sows does not apply in this context? The way the tides work on the south coast means that it is not only Brighton and Hove that suffer from the problems in Brighton and Hove, but resorts such as Eastbourne and Hastings further along the coast suffer from them, too. Does my hon. Friend agree that the cost
    1170
    to Southern Water is infinitesimal compared with the cost to our tourist industry, which is already under threat as a result of the problems that land on our beach?
    Dr. Turner: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. The way in which the tides work along our part of the channel coast means that Brighton's sewage plume just about reaches Seaford's and Newhaven's, which in turn moves along to Eastbourne. There is a belt of polluted water sloshing along the channel and, given a good onshore breeze, it comes ashore.
    Mr. Baker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Dr. Turner: I have very little time.
    Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned my constituency.
    Dr. Turner: I will give way if the hon. Gentleman is briefer than usual.
    Mr. Baker: I shall be brief. I am trying to helpful. My constituents share the hon. Gentleman's concern that Southern Water should invest in tertiary treatment. It is simply not good enough for it to come up with a cheap solution which involves dumping sewage further out to sea. The hon. Gentleman will have my support and that of my constituents for his efforts.
    Dr. Turner: I thank the hon. Gentleman and wholly agree with him. I am beginning to run out of time, so I shall start to wind up.
    It is quite clear that the water companies are putting greed and the desire for profit above their heavy responsibility to provide for good public health, and are prepared to permit the continuation of a public health hazard in order to maintain their profits. That is quite unacceptable in the face of the public health case for good water treatment. Briefly, even water of blue-flag standard is not guaranteed safe for swimming, because the examination of micro-organisms tells us nothing about viruses. There is clear epidemiological evidence that swimming in blue-flag quality waters is a health hazard, and leads to viral infections in particular.
    I conclude with an urgent plea to the Government to consider the excellent Select Committee report seriously. I think that they can be trusted not to treat it with the contempt with which the previous Government treated the previous Select Committee report on sewage treatment and disposal, which was also highly critical of the standard of treatment and recommended at least secondary treatment. That was nine years ago, but nothing was done. I do not expect my hon. Friend the Minister to be able to give us firm commitments tonight, but I hope that we can at least be assured that serious consideration is being given to a vital public health issue.
    11.56 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Angela Eagle): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) on obtaining tonight's Adjournment debate. As he said, sewage treatment is an

    1171
    emotive subject for many people. In the time left, I shall try to explain some of the issues that will inform the Government's views and opinions.
    My hon. Friend mentioned the benefits of full sewage treatment, and his concern that only primary treatment is currently being proposed by Southern Water for a number of sewage discharges along the south coast, including the large discharge in his constituency at Brighton, Portobello.
    I certainly agree that we must consider very carefully before allowing coastal discharges to receive primary treatment only. However, we also need to think carefully about environmental standards and priorities before we commit limited resources, paid for through water bills, to specific improvements. Perhaps it would be helpful for me to put the matter fully into context.
    Among the main statutory obligations which Southern Water—along with all the other privatised water and sewerage companies—must meet, are those imposed by the European Union's urban waste water treatment directive. The directive requires all significant discharges of sewage to be treated according to their size and the nature of the receiving waters over a phased timetable from 1998 to 2005. The largest discharges, and those with the greatest potential to adversely affect particularly sensitive waters, are to be brought up to the directive's standards more quickly than smaller discharges.
    The directive specifies secondary treatment as the norm, but requires at least primary treatment for discharges to areas with high natural dispersion characteristics, such as the areas identified off the south coast. They were identified by the previous Administration in 1994 and involved 58 potential areas, following advice from the then National Rivers Authority, which had applied the criteria set out in the directive.
    Designation of such areas, though, does nothing in itself. It merely provides a platform for decisions about the level of treatment to be provided following comprehensive studies. In practice, decisions about individual discharges are most important. We do not expect to make decisions on areas of high natural dispersion until after all the comprehensive studies on discharges in each area have been assessed, so that any relevant information coming out of the studies can be included in our consideration.
    We are, of course, concerned that primary treatment should be used only where scientifically justified. Under the terms of the directive, it must first be demonstrated that there would be no adverse environmental effect from providing less stringent treatment than secondary treatment.
    That must be shown through a comprehensive study of the impact of the discharge on the receiving waters. The study may be commissioned by the relevant water company, but it must follow a predetermined format. More importantly, the results of the study must demonstrate a lack of adverse environmental effect to the satisfaction of the Environment Agency, not the water company.
    The Environment Agency is taking a rigorous approach to the assessment of such studies. If the comprehensive study fails to prove no adverse environmental effect, then
    1172
    the agency will require secondary treatment to be installed. That is evidenced by its decision to require secondary treatment at Hendon in Northumberland, because it would provide environmental benefit. The agency refused to certify the comprehensive study, and secondary treatment will have to be provided.
    Even primary treatment represents a considerable improvement on raw sewage being discharged from large cities into our coastal waters, as has happened until recently. Primary treatment significantly reduces the polluting effects of sewage by removing at least 50 per cent. of suspended solids and reducing biological oxygen demand by 20 per cent. It can also remove up to 50 per cent. of bacteria and viruses, which may be harmful to human health.
    Moreover, where a discharge is made through a long sea outfall—often several kilometres offshore and into very deep water—the natural action of seaborne micro-organisms is capable of performing effectively and very rapidly the same process of further breakdown of polluting matter that occurs in secondary treatment.
    I understand that Southern Water is planning to provide advanced primary treatment, by adding chemical assistance to the more basic primary treatment at its coastal discharges at Brighton, Littlehampton and Bognor Regis. That is projected to give a reduction, before discharge, of as much as 90 per cent. of the bacterial load—close to what would be achieved by full secondary treatment.
    We have noted the concerns of those who are still not convinced that anything less than full secondary treatment will afford the necessary environmental protection. Representatives of the Environment Agency were asked in the autumn of last year to make a presentation to my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment on the criteria and procedures applied to make recommendations for the identification of HNDAs under the directive. The presentation also covered the basis of the comprehensive study procedure. A representative of Surfers Against Sewage and researchers from the Water Research Centre were also asked to attend, to widen the discussion and represent the concerns of those not directly involved in the process.
    The aim of the meeting was to provide more comprehensive briefing on the scientific aspects of the process of HNDA identification and of the comprehensive studies process. At that time, not many of the comprehensive studies had been completed or fully considered by the agency. However, we counselled the agency to be rigorous in its approach to assessment. On that basis, we were sufficiently reassured to allow the process to continue, pending a further meeting when more work had been done.
    During the interim, completed comprehensive studies for the Southern Water discharges have been provided to the agency. Copies have been sent to the relevant local authorities and made available to the public for comment. The Environment Agency's southern region also advertised the availability of the studies in the local press.
    My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment met the agency again last month to consider the generality of the issues. In the light of that discussion, we are considering the Government's policy options. It is right that we should carefully examine all the evidence, which may go beyond that provided by the comprehensive

    1173
    studies. There are a number of factors to be considered, relating to the national context as well as the south coast situation. We shall ensure that the decision-making process takes into account the views of local people, as water charge payers and concerned environmentalists.
    Ministers have not had detailed discussions with Southern Water about the financing of its commitments, because that is primarily for the company to discuss with Ofwat. However, Southern Water is among the smaller companies. The extra cost of providing secondary treatment at all its coastal discharges would be substantial—more than £150 million on the company's estimates.
    In addition, we have heard today calls for nothing less than tertiary treatment, including the installation of ultra-violet disinfection for all coastal discharges. If there are sound environmental reasons for providing UV disinfection—for example, to protect bathers—that may be desirable. However, there would be an additional price to pay. Southern Water estimates that the addition of UV disinfection would incur further capital costs of £50 million, and annual operating costs of £2.5 million.
    The Director General of Water Services will be considering the size of the estimates as part of the periodic review of water company price limits, which is already well under way. As part of the review, all water companies are under pressure to deliver efficiency gains, but it would be unrealistic to suppose that costs would not be passed on to water bill payers.
    There is a strong argument that higher standards of treatment should be provided, if that is what local people want, but they must understand that they, as water bill payers, will ultimately have to pay for them. Even a very significant downward adjustment of Southern Water's estimates by Ofwat would be likely to result in price increases for Southern Water's customers.
    It is true that some companies have undertaken to go further than their statutory obligations in upgrading sewage treatment, and to finance it in part through efficiency gains. We welcome that where it happens, but it must be a commercial decision for each company, within the constraints imposed by Ofwat, as the financial regulator.
    I should make it clear that we are not in the business of protecting water company profits. We are seeking to strike an appropriate balance between environmental needs and priorities, and the impact on water bills. That applies not just to the relatively narrow question of the level of treatment for coastal discharges but to the full range of environmental objectives.
    1174
    I expect that many of our constituents will say that they are prepared to pay a little more for environmental improvements, but others already find paying their water bills difficult. We should bear it in mind, too, that unnecessary additional treatment has a range of negative environmental consequences, including the use of additional land and energy consumption, with the potential for additional air pollution.
    Last month saw the publication of the Environment Sub-Committee's report of its inquiry into sewage treatment and disposal. The report, which has obviously been mentioned, brings together a range of issues, including some that are very pertinent to this debate.
    The Sub-Committee recommended that, by 2002, all sewage should be treated to tertiary level at all times. As a corollary, it recommended abandoning the concept of high natural dispersion areas. Alongside that, it is argued that the Director General of Water Services should not be seeking real-terms cuts in sewerage charges at the next periodic review.
    We welcome the Sub-Committee's interest in these matters. The Government will, of course, be responding formally to its recommendations in due course, once we have given the important issues raised serious consideration. It is a pity that the Sub-Committee's report did not make more effort to set the recommendations against likely cost implications.
    The recommendation for universal tertiary treatment, for example, goes far beyond European requirements, and exceeds the level implied by scientific evidence or health needs. Neither we nor the water companies have costed a comprehensive programme at such a very high level, but it is likely to run into many billions of pounds.
    I agree that there should be no prejudgment at this stage of the appropriate level of water bills during the next pricing period, although, equally, we must be realistic about what is achievable at affordable cost. That is part of the process on which we are about to embark, in the context of the periodic review.
    The director general will be seeking guidance from the Deputy Prime Minister about the priorities to be given to possible quality objectives to be achieved through water company investment. In response to that request, which is scheduled for July, we will set the policy framework for investment by water companies over the coming period. The issue that we have been debating will be an important element of that strategy. I assure hon. Members that the Government will take very serious account of the views that have been expressed.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes past Twelve midnight

DEFENCE

  Armed Forces Personnel Administration Agency
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what performance targets have been set for the Armed Forces Personnel Administration Agency for 1998–99. [37359]

  Dr. Reid
  Key Targets have been set for the Chief Executive of the Armed Forces Personnel Administration Agency for the financial year 1998–99. The targets build upon progress made by the Agency since it formed on 1 April 1997 and are as follows:

  1. Pay, allowances and pensions payments
  Whilst making 100% of payments of pay, allowances and pensions by the due date, the number of errors per 1,000 payments not to exceed 5.

  2. Accuracy of personnel records and liabilities data
  Establish a plan with customers to validate the completeness and accuracy of the record of service data, to assist in the further development of unit based systems and introduce sampling methods to assess future accuracy by December 1998.

  3. Currency of personnel records and liabilities data
  Update all personnel records and liabilities data within 3 days of valid input.

  4. Responsiveness
  Resolve 85% of inquiries, written or through official help desks, within 10 working days, across all services, where information and/or authority is within AFPAA's control.

  5. Customer satisfaction
  To set measures for customer satisfaction by December 1998.

  6. Efficiency
  To reduce the average unit costs to deliver AFPAA services by 3% this year.

  Racial Equality
  Mr. Rapson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures he is taking to promote greater racial equality in the armed forces following the decision of the Commission for Racial Equality to abandon legal action against the Household Cavalry. [37360]

  Dr. Reid
  The decision by the Commission for Racial Equality on 25 March 1998 to abandon altogether the question of legal action against the Household Cavalry was most welcome. It reflects, quite rightly, the considerable efforts which have been made over the last two years, across all three Armed Services and including the Household Cavalry, following general criticisms of racial equality policies. To achieve this progress has required considerable determination which Sir Herman Ouseley, the CRE's Chairman has described as a 'model of leadership in action'. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and I are delighted with the excellent progress which has now enabled the 444
  Commission to recognise the Armed Forces' willingness to make real, permanent progress; I congratulate the Services for what has been achieved.

  It is essential that the commitment to change is maintained. For this reason we have agreed a five year "Partnership Agreement" with the Commission and I am placing a copy in the Library. The Agreement is comprehensive and reflects the considerable challenges which lie ahead for the Armed Forces as they seek to put in place and develop, through the strong leadership now being demonstrated, robust racial equality policies. The Agreement, which includes meeting challenging ethnic minority recruitment targets and developing monitoring and evaluation of personnel policies, will require rigorous application. We will be looking to build upon the constructive cooperation we have had with the CRE. We know that the Services are determined to address the Partnership Agreement with vigour and we shall be fully supportive of their efforts.

  RNAD Trecwn
  Sir Raymond Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 12 March 1998,Official Report, column 325, what area of land at RNAD Trecwn, Pembroke, was disposed of; how much was received for it; in which publications its sale was advertised; how many bids were received for its purchase; and which bidder was successful. [36768]

  Mr. Spellar
  The area of land sold at RNAD Trecwn, Pembrokeshire was 431 hectares. Advertisements were placed in the Estates Gazette, Leisure Week, the Irish Times, Cork Examiner, Western Mail, Property Week, and the Financial Times. Ten bids were received and a preferred purchaser was identified. When the purchaser subsequently withdrew in September 1997, the site was re-offered to the underbidders by formal tender. These bids were submitted and the successful bidder was Omega Pacific Limited. The sale was completed on 21 January 1998.

  I am withholding details of the bid received under exemption 14 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Arms Exports
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the value of exports to(a) Bahrain, (b) Kuwait, (c) the United Arab Emirates, (d) Qatar and (e) Oman of (i) land systems and equipment; (ii) air systems and equipment, (iii) naval systems and equipment and (iv) services and consulting in each of the last five years. [34758]

  Mr. Spellar
  The information requested relates to the procurement of defence equipment and services by foreign governments. Details have been provided to the Ministry of Defence either directly by those governments or voluntarily by British companies under commercial confidentiality constraints.

  Officials are currently reviewing whether the information may be released under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. I will write to the hon. Member as soon as that review has been completed. A copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.
  445
  In the interim, I can advise that the UK reports the annual export of major weapons systems to the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms which was established in 1992. This information is provided voluntarily by industry on the understanding that, by virtue of its inclusion in the UN Arms Register, it will be made public. The table shows the UK's return for the countries specified according to UN Register category. Categories I, II and III are land systems, category IV and V and VII are air systems and category VI is a naval system. The UK's 1997 return to the Register will be available in May.

  UN Register category/Importing state

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  I. Battle tanks

  Oman

  —

  —

  —

  12

  6

  II. Armoured combat vehicles

  Kuwait

  —

  —

  —

  66

  116

  Oman

  —

  —

  4

  3

  51

  III. Large calibre artillery systems

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  IV. Combat aircraft

  Oman

  —

  1

  12

  4

  —

  UAE

  —

  16

  2

  4

  —

  V. Attack helicopters

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  VI. Warships

  Oman

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  VII. Missiles and missile launchers

  UAE

  398

  328

  195

  —

  —

  Low Flying
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the pattern of military low flying activity in the United Kingdom during 1997. [37361]

  Mr. Spellar
  Military low flying training continues to be a necessary contribution to our defence capabilities. The amount carried out in 1997 was about 5 per cent. lower than in 1996, measured in terms of hours booked, reflecting current requirements and commitments. The distribution across the country has not changed significantly. We try to spread the activity as widely as possible, but a variety of operational, geographic and climatic constraints inevitably mean that some areas continue to see a greater intensity than others.

  I have today placed in the Library of the House a paper giving a detailed account of the pattern of activity. Further copies can be obtained from the following address:

  Secretariat (Air Staff) 2

  Ministry of Defence

  Room 8247

  Main Building

  Whitehall

  London SW1A 2HB.

  446

  Jaguar Aircraft (Italy)
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the re-deployment of the Royal Air Force aircraft at Gioia del Colle in Italy; and if he will make a statement. [37510]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The six RAF Jaguars currently based at Gioia del Colle in Italy and their supporting RAF Tristar tanker based at Ancona will be redeployed to the UK on 6 April. This results from our assessment that it is no longer necessary to have the Jaguars based in Italy on a full time basis given the improving situation in Bosnia. The Jaguars will, however, remain on short notice to resume participation in operations over Bosnia if required.

TREASURY

  NHS Funding
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out the basis on which(a) the £300 million for winter pressures in the NHS and (b) the £500 million additional NHS funding announced in the Budget were allocated between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. [36149]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 25 March 1998]: £190 million of the £300 million allocated for winter pressures in the NHS was divided up according to the long standing Barnett formula. A further £80 million was allocated directly to the Department of Health to meet specific pressures in England. The remainder was found by the Department of Health through administrative savings.

  All of the £500 million additional NHS funding announced in the Budget was divided up in accordance with the Barnett formula.

  These amounts are in addition to the £1.2 billion that the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his Budget in July 1997 which were also allocated in accordance with the Barnett formula.

  Road Fuel Duty
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the actual and estimated yield from duty on road fuel for the years(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000; and what the figure would be if the duty increased had been in line with the RPI. [35866]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 23 March 1998]: The latest estimates of revenue from road fuel duties are £18.9 billion in 1997–98 and £21.2 billion in 1998–99.

  If the duty rates had increased in July 1997 and March 1998 in line with the 12 month RPI for September 1997 and September 1998 respectively, the estimates would have been £18.4 billion in 1997–98 and £19.6 billion in 1998–99.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what additional amount the retail prices index has risen since 1992 as a result of the imposition of petrol and diesel fuel excise duty increases compared with the increase that would have occurred if the duty increases had been limited to the RPI. [35512]
  447
  Dawn Primarolo
  HM Customs and Excise estimate that the cumulative increase in the RPI as a result of increases in petrol and diesel duty rates since 1992 (including the 1992 increase) has been 1.36 per cent. Had the duty increases been limited to increases in RPI, the cumulative impact would have been 0.58 per cent. The additional amount is therefore 0.78 per cent.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish(a) the number of places on each of his Department's non-departmental public bodies, (b) the

  Body

  Places (a)

  Currently unfilled (b)

  Resigned since 1 May 1997 (c)

  Retired since 1 May 1997 (d)

  Contracts not renewed since 1 May 1997 (e)

  Remained in place since 1 May 1997 (f)

  Total number appointed since 1 May 1997 (g)

  Armed Forces Pay Review Body

  8

  0

  0

  0

  0

  8

  0

  Bank of England (Court of)

  18

  1

  2

  1

  0

  14

  3

  Board of Banking Supervision

  9

  0

  1

  0

  0

  6

  2+(l1)

  Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration Review Body

  8

  1

  1

  0

  0

  7

  0

  Financial Services Tribunal

  20

  0

  0

  0

  0

  20

  0

  Nurses', Midwives', Health Visitors and Professions Allied to Medicine Review Body

  8

  1

  1

  0

  0

  7

  0

  Pharmacists' Review Panel

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  0

  Policyholders Protection Board

  5

  0

  0

  0

  1

  4

  l+(21)

  Retail Price Index Advisory Committee2

  26

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Royal Mint Advisory Committee

  11

  0

  0

  2

  0

  9

  2+(l1)

  School Teachers' Review Body

  9

  2

  0

  0

  0

  7

  0

  Senior Salaries Review Body

  10

  1

  0

  0

  0

  9

  0

  Statistics Advisory Committee (ONS)

  20

  0

  2

  0

  0

  18

  2

  VAT and Duties Tribunals3

  108

  0

  3

  0

  4

  105

  3

  1 Re-appointments

  2 RPI Advisory Committee is an ad-hoc committee—last convened in 1994.

  3 The figures for the VAT and Duties Tribunals reflect a reduction in the number of appointments.

  Taxation
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) pursuant to Table 3.3, Effects of Budget on number of families with high marginal deduction rates, in his Financial Statement and Budget report (HC620), if he will publish equivalent figures for families facing marginal deduction rates of(a) 50 per cent. or more and (b) 40 per cent. or more; [35528]

  (2) pursuant to Table 3.3 of the Red Book, how many people have a marginal deduction rate of 68.5 per cent. or more on current arrangements; and how many will have a deduction rate of 68.5 per cent. or more under his proposals. [35862]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate how many families will face a marginal deduction rate of between 50 per cent. and 60 per cent.(a) before and (b) after the introduction of working families tax credit. [36101]

  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families under the working families tax credit will have a marginal deduction rate of 50 per cent. or more; and how many currently have marginal deduction rates of 50 per cent. or more. [36416]
  448
  number of places that are currently unfilled on each non-departmental public body, (c) the total number of members that have resigned since 1 May 1997, (d) the total number that have retired since 1 May 1997, (e) the total number that have not had their contracts renewed since 1 May 1997, (f) the total number that have remained in place since 1 May 1997 and (g) the total number that have been appointed since 1 May 1997. [35272]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 19 March 1998]: The information for the bodies listed in "Public Bodies", and for other NDPBs to which Treasury Ministers make appointments, is as follows:

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answers 20, 23, 24 and 26 March 1998]: The data requested are given in the table. It shows that the Budget has taken an important step towards tackling the unemployment and poverty traps. In-work incomes have increased, and the level at which families with 2 children start to pay effective income tax has risen from 25 per cent. to 50 per cent. of average earnings. The number of families facing very high marginal deduction rates has been reduced significantly. In those cases where families may face a higher MDR, they will still be better off.

  Effect of Budget on number of families with marginal deduction rates of 40 per cent, or more1

  (000)

  Marginal deduction rate

  Before Budget

  After Budget

  100 per cent, or more

  5

  0

  90 per cent, or more

  130

  20

  80 per cent, or more

  300

  200

  70 per cent, or more

  740

  260

  68.5 per cent, or more

  760

  810

  60 per cent, or more

  760

  1,010

  449

  Effect of Budget on number of families with marginal deduction rates of 40 per cent. or more1

  (000)

  Marginal deduction rate

  Before Budget

  After Budget

  50 per cent. or more

  760

  1,080

  40 per cent. or more

  800

  1,120

  1 Figures are for families in receipt of income-related benefits or the WFTC where at least one partner works 16 hours or more, and are based on 1997–98 caseload and take-up rates.

  The figures do not take account of changes to National Insurance contributions, which will reduce MDRs for those just below the Lower Earnings Limit.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many staff are employed in Scotland by his Department, or executive agencies responsible to his Department; and where those staff are located. [36215]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Treasurey, the Office for National Statistics and Royal Mint employ no staff in Scotland. The numbers and location within Scotland of the staff of Customs and National savings on 1 march 1998 are given in the table.

  Area

  Number

  Customs & Excise

  Aberdeen

  203

  Ayr

  29

  Campbeltown

  1

  Coatbridge

  26

  Dumbarton

  29

  Dundee

  150

  Dumfries

  7

  Edinburgh

  340

  Elgin

  18

  Fort William

  1

  Glasgow

  379

  Grangemouth

  44

  Greenock

  126

  Inverness

  14

  Islay

  3

  Kirkwall

  3

  Lerwick

  12

  Oban

  5

  Paisley

  16

  Prestwick

  29

  Stornaway

  5

  Ullapool

  3

  Wick

  5

  Total

  1,449

  Inland Revenue1

  Aberdeen

  140

  Ayr

  59

  Buckie

  15

  Coatbridge

  27

  Cumbernauld

  1,058

  Dumbarton

  21

  Dumfries

  51

  Dundee

  106

  Dunfermline

  30

  Dunoon

  18

  East Kilbride

  1,358

  Edinburgh

  1,228

  Falkirk

  30

  Galashiels

  19

  Glasgow

  654

  450

  Area

  Number

  Greenock

  37

  Hamilton

  37

  Hawick

  15

  Inverness

  87

  Irvine

  35

  Kirkcaldy

  35

  Motherwell

  32

  Paisley

  43

  Perth

  25

  Peterhead

  23

  Rothesay

  13

  Stirling

  48

  Wick

  26

  Total

  5,270

  Valuation Office

  Aberdeen

  12

  Dumfries

  7

  Edinburgh

  35

  Glasgow

  29

  Inverness

  11

  Total

  94

  National Savings

  Glasgow

  1,730

  1 Excluding the Valuation Office.

  European Central Banks
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for each member state of the European Union(a) the current functions performed in whole or in part by their central bank, (b) for each function, those bodies or persons responsible for decisions in respect of each and (c) to whom such bodies or persons are currently accountable. [37215]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The EMI convergence report, published in March 1998 in accordance with Article 109j(1) of the EC Treaty, provides a detailed account of the statutory duties of member states' national central banks and the extent of legal convergence with the Treaty.

  Debt Management
  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress he has made in transferring debt management responsibilities to the Treasury; and if he will make a statement. [37451]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The United Kingdom Debt Management Office (DMO) will be launched as an Executive Agency on 1 April 1998. From that date it will take over as the Government's agent for operations in the gilts market. Copies of the DMO Framework Document have been placed in the libraries of both Houses.

  I have set the following targets for the DMO for 1998–99:

  1. To ensure full compliance with the Government's remit for the issuance of debt to finance the Central Government Borrowing Requirement as set out in the Debt Management Report, published on 19 March, within the tolerances and subject to the review triggers notified separately to the Office.

  2. To reduce the maximum time taken to issue the results of conventional gilt auctions from 45 minutes to 40 minutes whilst achieving complete accuracy.

  451

  3. To establish the system for managing the Exchequer's aggregate cash position which achieves cost-effective financing and is error free, properly conducted, legally sound and subject to minimal credit risk (to the satisfaction of an external assessor) by January 1999.

  4. To achieve complete accuracy, within agreed accounting tolerances, in the recording of transactions, the money delivered to the NLF and the reports of the Debt Management Account.

  5. To acknowledge all letters from the public within two weeks and for at least 95 per cent. to be sent a substantive reply within four weeks.

  6. To achieve less than 12 breaches of the operational market notice (excluding any breaches which the Treasury accept were beyond the control of the office).

  7. To ensure that the qualifications that the NAO have made in respect of the Gilt-Edged Official Operations Account are satisfactorily addressed in the running and presentation of the Debt Management Account.

  Pensioners (Medical Insurance)
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many pensioners currently hold private medical insurance policies; and what the figure was in April 1997. [37049]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Chief Executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Tim Loughton, dated 31 March 1998:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent question requesting figures for the number of pensioners holding private medical insurance policies.
  The most recent estimate available is from the 1996–97 Family Expenditure Survey, which is based on information collected from April 1996 to March 1997. This shows that among those households headed by a pensioner, seven per cent. included one or more people who made payments into a private medical insurance scheme.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps the Inland Revenue takes in circumstances where(a) a husband and wife cannot agree who should receive the working families tax credit and (b) one spouse claims the other is receiving the tax credit but keeping it to him or herself. [34887]

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer where both members of a couple request that the working families tax credit be paid directly to them, which party's wishes will take precedence. [36093]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer who will receive the working families tax credit in the event that a couple cannot agree on which of them should receive it. [36039]

  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what circumstances couples who are unable to agree as to how working families tax credit should be paid will receive the credit(a) via the pay packet of the person in paid employment and (b) paid direct to the non-employed mother. [36363]
  452
  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 17, 24 and 26 March 1998]: From April 2000 the Working Families Tax Credit will generally be paid through the wage packet. Couples will be able to choose which partner should receive the credit. The details of the new scheme, including the rules for dealing with particular situations, such as disagreements between partners, will be developed by the Inland Revenue over the coming months. Although the resolution of particular disagreements would, of course, depend on the specific facts of the case, the present presumption is that, where the couple disagree about which of them is to receive the credit, it would normally be paid to the partner who mainly cared for the children.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Peace Process
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she intends to agree to a political settlement involving those parties with paramilitary links without those parties and the paramilitary organisations with which they are linked being committed to the Mitchell Principles and demonstrable progress being made along the parallel track which deals with disarmament. [35657]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  [holding answer 23 March 1998]: All parties involved in the talks process have affirmed their total and absolute commitment to the Mitchell Principles. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear on 15 September 1997 in a joint statement with the Taoiseach both Governments would like to see the decommissioning of some paramilitary arms during the negotiations and believe this could be a major contribution to confidence-building and momentum towards agreement. There is no legal or technical obstacle to decommissioning. It should commence now.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  British Amateur Rugby League Association
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will review the appropriateness of Government support for the British Amateur Rugby League Association, with particular reference to the association's rules on out of district transfers. [36609]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 30 March 1998]: Central Government support for sport is channelled through the UK and English Sports Councils. As independent bodies established by Royal Charter, it is for the sports councils to determine what funding they make available to sports governing bodies.

  I have no power to intervene in the day-to-day affairs of properly constituted governing bodies of sport. I recognise that regional boundary areas can cause some problems, but it is for British Amateur Rugby League Association (BARLA) to establish and implement rules and regulations which they consider to be in the best interests, both for individual players and for the game as a whole.
  453

  Sport Governing Bodies
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to his answer of 26 February 1998,Official Report, column 322, what was the level of public funding to each of the sports organisations in the last year for which figures are available. [33544]

  Mr. Banks
  I am placing copies of this information in the Libraries of the House.

  Holidays
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many days' holiday he estimates were taken in the United Kingdom by UK residents in(a) 1995, (b) 1996 and (c) 1997. [36859]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  According to the United Kingdom Tourist Survey, UK residents spent 302.1 million nights away from home on holiday in the United Kingdom during 1995, and 295.8 million nights in 1996. Information for 1997 is not yet available.

  Museums and Galleries
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will state the(a) percentage and (b) total amount of grant in aid awarded to museums and galleries in (i) London, (ii) England and (iii) Scotland. [36130]

  Mr. Fisher
  [holding answer 26 March 1998]: Information for 1997–98 is in the following table. These figures exclude spending on museums and galleries by local authorities and universities and do not therefore reflect the true geographic balance of public resources.

  Grant-in-aid in 1997–98 (£ million)

  Percentage of total

  London1

  185.20

  77.5

  of which:

  DCMS2

  184.70

  MGC3

  0.50

  England (excluding London)

  21.40

  9.0

  of which:

  DCMS2

  15.30

  MGC3

  6.10

  Scotland

  32.30

  13.50

  of which:

  MGC3

  0.02

  SO4

  32.30

  Total

  238.9

  100.0

  1 The data for London include the national museums situated there. and galleries situated there.

  2 Department for Culture, Media and Sport (excluding MGC).

  3 Museums and Galleries Commission (grant-in-aid from DCMS).This figure is not yet final.

  4 Scottish Office.

  The picture is somewhat distorted as most national museums and galleries are in London, accounting for £175.8 million (73.4 per cent. of the total). This is inevitable as London is our capital city. Removing this figure from the calculation results in a more even distribution of funding.
  454

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many meetings have been requested with his Department's Ministers by(a) Labour and (b) Conservative hon. Members; and how many meetings have been granted in each category. [31297]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  My Department does not maintain a record of meetings requested by hon. Members, although it is overwhelmingly our general policy to accede to them. I and my ministerial colleagues have had a number of formal meetings with hon. Members, individually and collectively, from all sides of the House. We also make ourselves available for informal discussions in the House and at the Department, personally and by telephone.

  Tourism
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps he is taking to promote awareness of tourism careers in schools. [36977]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  It is important that students, careers advisers and parents are aware of the range of career opportunities there are in tourism. With that in mind, I was very pleased recently to launch Springboard UK, which is receiving pump-priming funding through the Government's Sector Challenge competition. Springboard will provide a national network of one-stop shop careers advice centres, and will work through schools, colleges and universities to ensure that students, teachers and career advisers have access to up-to-date information about the career opportunities in this fast growing sector.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the change in the total number of jobs in tourism-related industries in the year to December 1997 in(a) London and (b) the north-west of England. [36853]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  The total number of employees in employment in tourism related industries fell between December 1996 and December 1997 by(a) 5.5% in London and (b) 6.4% in the north-west of England. This compares with a fall of 1.3% in Great Britain overall.

  Party Conferences
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what evaluation he has made of the impact on the tourism industry of the hosting of annual party conferences in Blackpool. [36963]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  None. However, the Government fully recognise the importance of the contribution which the business and conference sector makes to the wider tourism and hospitality industry. An industry-led working group is looking at what action might be taken to enhance that contribution. Its findings will inform my Department's forthcoming strategy for the sustainable growth of tourism.
  455

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Development Awareness Working Group
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the purpose is of the Development Awareness Working Group; and if she will list the members. [37167]

  Clare Short
  As set out in their recent White Paper on International Development, the Government attach great importance to increasing Development Awareness in the United Kingdom, and have now established a Development Awareness Working Group, chaired by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development. This will hold its first meeting today. The Group will advise DFID on the planning and implementation of its strategy on development awareness.

  The initial membership of the Group will be:

  Tany Alexander, One World Week

  Douglas Bourn, Development Education Association

  Tim Brighouse, Chief Education Officer, Birmingham City Council

  Paddy Coulter, International Broadcasting Trust

  Liz Cumberbatch, Workers' Education Association

  Bisi Adeleye Fayemi, Akina Mama Wa Afrika

  John Fisher, Transport and General Workers Union

  Jaya Graves, Southern Voices

  Lisbeth Grundy, Council for Environmental Education

  Judith Hemery, Central Bureau for Educational Visits and Exchanges

  Phil Hope, MP

  Dr. Kim Howells MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, DfEE

  Elenid Jones, Christian Aid, Cardiff

  Robin Lloyd-Jones, Scottish Forum for Development Education in Schools

  Stephen MacCloskey, Coalition of Aid and Development Agencies, Belfast

  Jane Nelson, The Prince of Wales Business Leaders Forum

  Ashok Ohri, Organisation and Social Development Consultants Ltd.

  Dan Rees, Voluntary Service Overseas

  Tony Robinson

  Scot Sinclair, Development Education Centre, Birmingham Jon Snow

  John Sutton, CBE, General Secretary, Secondary Heads Association

  Derek Walker, Worldaware

  Tom Wylie, National Youth Agency.

  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will publish the Development Awareness Working Group Strategy document. [37107]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The first meeting of the Development Awareness Working Group will consider an outline strategy paper which details our initial thinking at this stage. The paper will be developed in the light of the advice of the Group. Copies of the outline paper are however being placed this week in the libraries of both Houses as well as on the Department for International Development's internet site.
  456

  Know How Fund
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the amount her Department will spend in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99 through the Know How Fund; and which countries will receive such funding. [36846]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Expenditure through the Know How Fund in 1997–98 is estimated to be £90 million.

  In 1998–99 expenditure is expected to be in the region of £80 million.

  The Know How Fund provides support to the following countries:

  Latvia

  Lithuania

  Estonia

  Bulgaria

  Hungary

  Poland

  Romania

  Czech Republic

  Slovak Republic

  Albania

  Macedonia

  Slovenia

  Croatia

  Bosnia

  Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

  Kazakhstan

  Belarus

  Georgia

  Armenia

  Ukraine

  Russian Federation

  Azerbaijan

  Moldova

  Turkmenistan

  Uzbekistan

  Tajikstan

  Kyrgyzstan.

  Strategy Papers
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when her Department's Country Strategy Papers will be made publicly available. [37081]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Existing Country Strategy Papers (CSPs) are available now. However, following the White Paper on International Development new papers are being prepared for all those bilateral country programmes over £10 million and other significant development programmes. These will be prepared over the next year and they will become publicly available as they are finalised. The first papers will be available in the Summer.

  Departmental Employees
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many staff are employed
  457
  in Scotland by her Department, or executive agencies responsible to her Department; and where those staff are located. [36210]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The Department currently employs 406 permanent and pensionable staff and 21 casual staff in Scotland. All these staff are located at the Department for International Development, East Kilbride.

  Asia Europe Meeting
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what subjects she proposes to raise at the Second Asia Europe Meeting. [36845]

  Mr. Fatchett
  I have been asked to reply.

  The agenda of the Second Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM 2) will be finalised by the Leaders themselves on the eve of the Summit. We expect ASEM 2 to have a wide-ranging political dialogue. The Asian financial crisis will be a priority in our economic discussions. The Summit will also produce outcomes in areas that matter to the peoples of our two regions, particularly education, child welfare and environment.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Mr. Hans Koschnik
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the role of Mr. Hans Koschnik in the European Commission; what budget he has been allocated; and to which Directorate General he has been allocated. [36975]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I understand that Mr. Hans Koschnik is not employed by the European Commission.

  Land Mines
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the Government intend to complete the ratification of the Ottawa Treaty on the banning of land mines. [36835]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We intend to ratify the Ottawa Convention as soon as the Parliamentary schedule allows for the passage of the necessary legislation.

  EU Presidency (Children)
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) of 13 March 1998,Official Report, column 402, what discussions he held with the Department for Education and Employment on the use of schoolchildren to promote the United Kingdom's presidency of the European Union prior to launch; and what subsequent representations he has received from that department. [37007]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  As I said in my answer to the hon. Member the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) on 13 March 1998,Official Report, column 402, the intention behind the activities for young people which we have organised is not to use children to promote the Presidency, but to encourage them to become involved.
  458
  We have worked closely with the Department for Education and Employment from the outset in considering how to involve young people in the Presidency. Our two Departments, for example, jointly produced the schools pack—Partners In Europe. There was also a joint launch of various activities and competitions for young people during the Presidency, notably the DfEE's "Celebrating Europe" and the FCO's "Ambassador for a Day" competitions. We remain in close touch with the Department for Education and Employment about these activities.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the use of children to launch events commemorating the UK Presidency of the European Union in British embassies in EU countries. [36976]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  One British embassy in another EU country invited children to an event marking the start of our Presidency of the EU. Our Embassy in Stockholm organised a tea-party to which the Ambassador invited his EU colleagues, asking them to bring a child who would like to "represent" the younger generation of their country. The children were not used to launch the event, but were invited to attend and meet their ambassadors and one other.

  Other than this specific event, many of our embassies in the EU regularly involve local school children in debates, competitions, open days and so on, to help increase their understanding of modern Britain and to explain where Britain stands on a range of issues. At the moment, these obviously include the Presidency.

  In addition, all our EU embassies are finding attachments for the prize winners in the FCO's Ambassador for a Day competition.

  Kashmir
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards territorial issues in Kashmir; and what steps he has taken to resolve disputes in this area. [36999]

  Mr. Fatchett
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friends the Members for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton) and for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) on 28 October 1997,Official Report, columns 795–96. We shall continue to encourage the governments of India and Pakistan in their dialogue.

  Algeria
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received in respect of human rights abuses in Algeria from(a) non-Governmental organisations and (b) members of the public; and if he will make a statement. [36855]

  Mr. Fatchett
  I met representatives of the United Nations Association, Amnesty International, the Refugee Council and the Medical Foundation for the Victims of Torture on 25 February to discuss their concerns about the human rights situation in Algeria. I will meet them again today (31 March) along with a representative of Human Rights Watch. My right hon. Friend the Foreign
  459
  Secretary and I receive a large number of letters from members of the public about Algeria which reflect similar concerns.

  We continue to be concerned about allegations of human rights violations in Algeria, and raise these concerns as part of our ongoing dialogue with the Algerian Government.

  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he has initiated as President of the EU Foreign Affairs Council in respect of human rights in Algeria; and if he will make a statement. [36973]

  Mr. Fatchett
  In January 1998, I led an EU troika to Algeria. During that visit and subsequently, we have continued to encourage the Algerians to accept a visit by UN Special Rapporteurs to Algeria as well as allow greater access for the international media.

  We continue to be concerned about the allegations of human rights violations in Algeria, and raise these concerns as part of our ongoing dialogue with the Algerian Government.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Attorney-General how many people are currently employed by the Crown Prosecution Service, broken down to show the number of(a) lawyers and (b) civil servants, by grade. [36305]

  The Attorney-General
  As at 28 February 1998, the Crown Prosecution Service employed 2,094 lawyers and 3,995 administrative staff. By level, these staff are broken down as:

  Staff

  People in post

  Full time equivalent

  Lawyers level

  Senior civil service

  40

  40

  Level E

  125

  124

  Level D

  221

  214.5

  Level C

  1,675

  1,542.5

  Legal trainees

  33

  32

  Total

  2,094

  1,953

  Administrators level

  Senior civil service

  6

  6

  Level E

  20

  20

  Level D

  31

  31

  Level B

  1,535

  2,247

  Level A

  2,403

  1,426

  Total

  3,995

  3,730

SCOTLAND

  Car Parking
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has(a) to reduce the number of car parking spaces available for use by staff and (b) to introduce charges for staff using workplace car parking spaces. [32461]
  460
  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 3 March 1998]: Car parking for use by staff of my Department is kept under regular review. In the last 12 months, 82 car parking spaces in Edinburgh city centre have been given up.

  Our proposals for a sustainable, effective and workable transport policy appropriate to the needs of Scotland will be set out in the forthcoming UK and Scottish Integrated Transport White Papers. Against that background, my Department is considering how best to develop Green Transport Plans for its key office buildings. We will consider in that context whether to review the feasibility and appropriateness of any further reductions in workplace car parking spaces and the introduction of charges for their use by staff.

  Teachers
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the measures relating to the work of secondary teachers in Scotland which his Department has implemented in the last 10 years. [35838]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 27 March 1998]: Over the last 10 years, numerous statements of policy on school education and substantial guidance have been issued to education authorities and schools. It is not possible, without disproportionate cost, to identify all measures which may have related, to a greater or lesser extent, to the work of secondary teachers. Scottish Office Education Department Circular No. 5/1995 covering guidance on education provision following local government reorganisation is already in the Library. I have today arranged for a supplementary list of school education circulars, covering the period for 1995 to the present date, to also be placed in the Library.

  Boundary Walls
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action the Government propose to take in response to the Scottish Law Commission report on Boundary Walls (HC584); and if he will make a statement. [37341]

  Mr. Dewar
  The Government have decided to accept the recommendations contained in the Scottish Law Commission Report on Boundary Walls. The Commission have concluded that the existing law is clear and seems widely accepted since there has been no recent case law and little pressure for change. The law provides for the maintenance of a boundary wall as a whole while at the same time allowing each owner to make full use of this own section of the wall. The Commission have therefore recommended that there is no need for legislation to either re-state or amend the present law.

  GPs (Deprivation Payments)
  Ms Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the criteria for deprivation payments to GPs, with particular reference to the criteria used to decide the percentage of a GP's list attracting deprivation payments; and what reviews he has undertaken or plans of the criteria relating to that percentage. [36716]
  461
  Mr. Galbraith
  For the purposes of the deprivation payments scheme in Scotland, the Jarman Index is applied to enumeration districts. Scotland uses 7 variables of the index: unemployment; numbers of elderly people living alone; household overcrowding; under 5s; single parent households; residents in ethnic minority households; and numbers who have moved house. The application of the index results in a score being given for each enumeration district which are then classified as areas of high, medium or low deprivation. A score of 50 or more indicates an area of high deprivation, 40 or more an area of medium deprivation and 30 or more an area of low deprivation. Each Health Board when calculating deprivation payments looks at each patient on a GP's medical list and pays the GP the relevant amount for the enumeration district in which the patient lives.

  There are no plans to review the deprivation payment scheme in Scotland at present.

  Ms Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current level of deprivation payments to GPs; and what increases in that level are planned. [36717]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The estimated amount payable in respect of deprivation payments in Scotland for the financial year ending 31 March 1998 is £4.976 million. The estimated amount payable for the financial year 1998–99 is approximately £5.1 million.

  Ms Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what sums will be paid as deprivation payments to GPs in the(a) West Fife, (b) Central Fife and (c) North-east Fife localities in the forthcoming financial year. [36718]

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

  Projected deprivation payments (£s)1 to GPs in Fife Health Board in financial year ending 31 March 1999, by locality

  Total

  Payment by level of deprivation

  Payment

  High

  Medium

  Low

  Fife Health Board

  257,738

  66,369

  74,166

  117,203

  West Fife

  97,724

  29,286

  25,413

  43,025

  Central Fife

  136,923

  32,646

  41,254

  63,023

  North-East Fife

  23,091

  4,438

  7,499

  11,154

  1 Payments have been estimated using the number of patients as at 1 April 1997 in areas classified as deprived and the appropriate fees for 1998/99.

  Cairngorms Partnership
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 17 March 1998,Official Report, column 576, for what reasons the Cairngorms Partnership stipulates that members of its advisory board appointed by local authorities should be the convenor of the local authority. [37108]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The Chairman of the Cairngorms Partnership has invited representatives at the highest level from those agencies with a key role to play in implementation of the Management Strategy, including the Convenors of the relevant local authorities, to form an Advisory Board. Membership of the Board is a matter for the Chairman of the partnership.
  462

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what are the key performance targets for Her Majesty's Land Registry, the Public Record Office, the Public Trust Office and the Court Service executive agencies for 1998–99. [37453]

  Mr. Hoon
  The following tables set out the key performance targets that the Lord Chancellor has set for Her Majesty's Land Registry, the Public Record Office, the Public Trust Office and the Court Service for 1998–99.

  HM Land Registry Key performance indicators and targets 1998–99

  Indicator

  Target

  Financial

  Return on average capital employed

  3%

  External Financing Limit

  £0

  Efficiency1

  Cost per unit in real terms

  £25.87

  Cost per unit in cash terms

  £30.21

  Charter Standards

  Speed

  Percentage of office copy and official search applications handled within two working days and

  98%

  Percentage of office copies and official searches processed in 3 working days

  100%

  Percentage of all registrations processed in 25 working days

  80%

  Accuracy

  Percentage of registrations handled free from any error

  98.50%

  Percentage of customers responding to the Annual Survey who perceive the accuracy of registrations to be excellent or good

  Better than 90%

  Development of Land Registration

  Implementation of concessionary fees under the Land Registration Act 1997

  1 April 1999

  Percentage of computerised titles in the Land Registry

  94%

  Percentage of computerised titles plans in the Land Register

  29%

  Number of scanned pages of filed documents (millions)

  4.30m

  Number of Direct Access service account holders at the end of the year

  1,500

  Implementation and evaluation of the National Land Information Service Bristol Conveyancing Pilot

  by 31 March 1999

  1 Land Registry measures its efficiency through reductions in cost per unit in real terms against a unit cost baseline of 1992–93 when it was first set up as a trading fund. The inflation factor for the cost per unit in cash terms is derived from the GDP indices announced by HM Treasury in March 1998.

  Note:

  Fuller details of the agency's targets are given in its Business Plan. which is available from Her Majesty's Land Registry.
  463

  Public Record Office Key performance indicators and targets 1998–99

  Indicator

  Target

  Efficiency

  Unit costs of key activities:

  (a) selecting and preserving the public records

  Reduce to £101.53 per metre

  (b) giving access to records

  Reduce to £7.83 per information transaction

  Backlog of records in departments reported as being over 30 years old and awaiting review

  Reduce from 2070 metres (assessed in January 1998) to 1340 metres

  Provision of acceptable storage conditions i.e. meeting the preservation and environmental standards recommended by BS 5454:1989 Recommendations for storage and exhibition of documents (BSI 1989)

  Increase the proportion of records stored to the standards from 88.12% to 88.29%

  Management efficiency in running support services and projects

  Reduce the running costs of the Office's support services as a proportion of overall running costs from 8.46% to 8.37%

  Quality of Service

  The achievement of Charter Standards

  (a) Charter Standard targets for answering letters, delivering documents to users and reprographic services

  Achieve 98.5% against the targets

  (b) User satisfaction surveys

  Achieve assessment of excellent on 56% of survey forms returned

  Effectiveness

  Performance in achieving specified milestones towards strategic objectives in the light of emerging government policies

  (a) Implement the recommendations of the Scoping Study of records management in government to the timetable established

  (b) Increase revenue by 3.3% against the 1997–98 target

  (c) Produce a new edition of the Public Record Office Guide

  Note:

  Fuller details of the agency's targets are given in its Business Plan, which is available from the Public Record Office.

  Public Trust Office Key performance indicators and targets 1998–99

  Indicator

  Target

  1. To carry out accounting transactions within target times

  To bring to account at least 99% of receipts and payments transactions within turnaround targets by volume weighted performance

  2. To achieve investment targets

  (a) To pay interest on the special rate account at an annual rate at or above the average of the agreed comparator, and to pay at least 75% of that rate on basic rate accounts.

  (b) To ensure that 90% of all funds which have a Dedicated Investment Portfolio' have a formal investment review2 at least once a year

  3. To achieve Charter Standards

  To achieve 98% of Charter Standards

  4. To meet the unit cost target

  To operate within a unit cost of £195.09

  5. Percentage of full costs recovered

  To ensure that 100% of full costs are recovered

  1 A Dedicated Investment Portfolio is one which has been constructed to accommodate the specific requirements of the client and has a sufficiency of funds and duration to allow it to be adjusted in line with stockmarket or client circumstances. The two investment KPIs cover around 80% of total funds held by the Public Trust Office.

  2 The investment review is complemented by the Public Trust Office policies of unitising smaller funds, and benchmarking larger portfolios against stock exchange models.

  Note:

  Fuller details of the Office's performance targets are given in its Business Plan, which is available from the Public Trust Office.

  Court Service Key performance indicators and targets 1998–99

  Indicator

  Target

  Quality of Service

  1. Quality of service provided to court users

  82%

  County Courts

  2. Percentage of administrative work in the civil courts dealt with within target time

  95%

  Crown Court

  3. Percentage of Crown Court cases that commence within target

  80%

  Unit Costs

  4. Unit cost of a case in the Crown Court

  £1,997.00

  5. Unit cost of an item of originating process in the civil courts

  £99.00

  Cost Recovery

  6. Percentage of the cost of the civil court arecovered through fees

  96%

  Note:

  Fuller details of the agency's targets are given in the Court Service Plan, April 1998-March 2001 which is available from the Court Service Headquarters.
  464 465

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Phoenix Data Quality
  Mr. Cranston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make available the Police Research Group's report, Phoenix Data Quality. [37335]

  Mr. Straw
  Yes. I am placing a copy of the report in the Library today.

  Animal Procedures Committee
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will appoint new members to the Animal Procedures Committee. [37336]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I am pleased to announce the appointment of four new members with effect from 1 April:Dr. David Clark, head of Unilever's Environmental Safety Laboratory;
  Dr. Maggy Jennings, head of the Research Animals Department at the Royal Society for the Protection of Cruelty to Animals;
  Dr. Gill Langley, scientific adviser to the Dr. Hadwen Trust for Humane Research; and
  Professor John Martin, Professor of Cardiovascular Medicine at University College London.

  I expect to make further appointments later in the year.

  Home Detention Curfew
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which prisoners will be released on home detention curfew. [37337]

  Ms Quin
  Most prisoners serving sentences of between three months and four years will be eligible for consideration for release on home detention curfew. To be released, they must first pass a risk assessment and have a suitable release address.

  The detail of the risk assessment is still being worked out and will need to balance properly any potential risk posed by the prisoner's release on home detention curfew against the risks involved in retaining prisoners in custody until their automatic release date when the curfew is not available.

  Prisoners will be assessed on the basis of their potential threat to the public and the probability of their reoffending or failing to comply with their conditions of curfew. Prisoners who have demonstrated a successful record of temporary release would normally be expected to be suitable for release on home detention curfew. The risk assessment will also make clear, however, that prisoners convicted of offences to which Part I of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 applies will not be released upon home detention curfew, save where there are exceptional circumstances, as this group of prisoners present a particular type of risk. We will, of course, keep this policy under review.

  Police Information Technology Organisation
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the arrangements for responding to parliamentary question 466
  sand correspondence from hon. Members relating to the work of the Police Information Technology Organisation following its change in status on 1 April. [37338]

  Mr. Michael
  With the implementation, on 1 April 1998, of the remaining provisions of Part IV of the Police Act 1997, the Police Information Technology Organisation (PITO), hitherto part of the Home Office, will become an executive Non-Departmental Public Body (NDPB). As an NDPB, PITO will henceforth be independent of the Home Office although, as the responsible Minister, my right hon. Friend will be accountable to Parliament for the overall efficiency and effectiveness with which the Organisation carries out its statutory functions.

  In recognition of PITO' s new independent status, hon. Members are invited to write direct to the Organisation's Chairman, Sir Trefor Morris, if they have any questions or concerns about the information technology or procurement activities undertaken by PITO on behalf of the police service or other customers, or about its administration. Sir Trefor's address is: Police Information Technology Organisation, Room 504, Horseferry House, Dean Ryle Street, London SW1P 2AW.

  My right hon. Friend and I will naturally continue to be responsible for answering Parliamentary Questions, unless they relate solely to PITO's activities in Scotland, in which case the Secretary of State for Scotland would be responsible. Advice on the administration and/or activities of PITO may be sought from the Organisation in order to answer Parliamentary Questions. Where an hon. Member asks a Parliamentary Question on matters concerning the day-to-day operation of the Organisation, my right hon. Friend or I will usually reply to the effect that the Chairman will write direct to the hon. Member concerned.

  Turning to Ministerial correspondence, if either my right hon. Friend or our Scottish Office counterparts, receive correspondence from hon. Members about matters which fall within PITO's area of responsibilities, we will normally reply to the effect that the correspondence has been forwarded to the Chairman with a request that he replies personally to the hon. Member concerned. Hon. Members will continue to receive a full Ministerial reply where the correspondence involves wider policy consideration.

  I will write to all hon. Members setting out these arrangements. A copy of my letter will be placed in the Library.

  Police and Fire Service Pension Schemes
  Mr. Paul Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to publish proposals for modernising the Police and Fire Service pension schemes. [37339]

  Mr. Straw
  Consultation documents on the two pension schemes have been published today. I have placed copies in the Library. Copies are also being sent to police forces and fire services, police and fire authorities, the police staff associations and the fire service unions in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. They have been invited to comment by 31 July 1998.
  467
  The current police and fire service pension schemes were established to reflect the special nature of police and firefighting work. Of course, we continue to take this fully into account. But these schemes are very expensive, both for police officers, firefighters and the relevant authorities and are not necessarily in tune with current circumstances.

  Authorities, in particular, are faced with large annual increases to pension costs, consuming an increasingly large proportion of their total budget and thus eating into the resources available to run the services themselves.

  The consultation documents have two main objectives: to stimulate debate for modernised pension schemes for future police officers and firefighters, which bring pensions more in line with other public service pensions and make them more affordable; to reform aspects of the current arrangements for retirement on medical grounds.

  In considering options for a new pension scheme, the unique nature of police and firefighting work will be recognised. There is no intention of reducing the pension benefits which serving or retired police officers or firefighters are entitled to as members of their pension schemes. Any changes to such benefits would apply only to new entrants to the police or fire service.

  The level of early retirements on medical grounds in the police and fire service is unacceptably high and in many cases cannot be justified. Wide variations across the country between forces and brigades support this argument. Good management of ill-health retirement is crucial. The consultation documents suggest options for change which depend on better practice and, in the case of the police, on amending current legislation. I have separately announced changes in regulations and practice to deal with those situations where officers seek to retire early before the disciplinary process is complete.

  The Government firmly believe that modernisation of the two schemes is essential, particularly as any changes to the pension benefits of new entrants will take many years to come into effect.

  Prison Visitors
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for the responsibility for funding boards of visitors and the Boards of Visitors' Secretariat. [37340]

  Ms Quin
  Responsibility for funding Boards of Visitors and the Secretariat will be transferred from the Home Office to the Prison Service with effect from 1 April. There are in practice no tangible business links between the work of Boards and the core Home Office and the transfer will enable Boards to be funded appropriately. This change will in no way affect the independence of Boards. Prior to reaching a decision the Government consulted the National Advisory Council for Boards of Visitors.

  Asylum and Immigration
  Mr. Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to replace the current application forms for foreign nationals wishing to apply for leave to remain in the United Kingdom. [37342]
  468
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The current application forms expire on 14 April 1998. Revised versions of the seven existing forms have been prescribed. These will be valid until 14 October 1998. From today until 14 April 1998 applications may be made on either the newly prescribed forms or the existing versions. Only the newly prescribed versions may be used for applications made on or after 15 April 1998. The new forms will be available shortly from the Application Forms Unit on 0181 760 2233 and copies have been placed in the Library.

  National Criminal Intelligence Service and National Crime Squad
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the arrangements for responding to parliamentary questions and correspondence from hon. Members relating to the work of the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad following their establishment on 1 April. [37358]

  Mr. Michael
  The National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS), which is currently part of the Home Office, will be placed on an independent statutory footing on 1 April in accordance with Part I of the Police Act 1997. NCIS will continue to have a United Kingdom-wide remit. The National Crime Squad will be created on 1 April in accordance with Part II of the Police Act 1997 and will replace the six existing Regional Crime Squads in England and Wales. The accountability arrangements for both services are similar to those for police forces. Each will be maintained by a Service Authority performing the same role as a police authority for a police force.

  NCIS and the National Crime Squad will both be under the direction and control of a Director General holding the rank of chief constable. In recognition of their operational independence, hon. Members should write to the Directors General if they have any questions or concerns about the operations or day to day management of NCIS or the National Crime Squad. The Director General of NCIS is Mr. John Abbott QPM NCIS, PO Box 8000, London SE 11 5EN. The Director General of the National Crime Squad is Mr. Roy Penrose OBE QPM, National Crime Squad, PO Box 2500, London, SW1V 2WF.

  The Service Authorities will be responsible for securing that NCIS and the National Crime Squad are efficient and effective. They will provide strategic direction and oversight, leaving the day to day management of NCIS and the National Crime Squad to the Directors General. Any questions about the role of the Service Authorities should be addressed to their Chairman, the right hon. Sir John Wheeler JP DL, PO Box 2600, London SW1V 2WG.

  My right hon. Friend and I will answer Parliamentary Questions and Ministerial correspondence about NCIS and the National Crime Squad on the same basis as for police forces. We will, of course, deal ourselves with any questions about the exercise of the Secretary of State's powers or responsibilities in relation to the two services or wider policy issues. If such questions relate solely to the activities of NCIS in Scotland or Northern Ireland, it may be appropriate for the relevant Secretary of State to respond. Where other general information is sought, we shall provide it if available. We shall usually reply that

  469
  questions about how the Service Authorities or the Directors General exercise their specific responsibilities are for those bodies or individuals to answer.

  I will write to all hon. Members to set out these arrangements. A copy of my letter will be placed in the Library, together with copies of the first service plan for NCIS and the National Crime Squad.

  Road Traffic Offences
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the road traffic offences for which the police, or other agents, are entitled to levy spot fines; and what plans he has to extend this to other such offences. [37111]

  Mr. Michael
  There is no system of "spot" fines for road traffic offences in the United Kingdom, but the police (and, in some instances, their traffic wardens) may issue fixed penalty notices in respect of some offences. The recipient of a fixed penalty notice must pay the penalty (normally £20 or £40) within 28 days or request a court hearing if issue of the notice is disputed.

  Section 51 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 enables the Secretary of State to provide by order for existing offences to become fixed penalty offences for the purposes of the Act. Schedule 3 to the Act, as amended by two Fixed Penalty Offences Orders (Statutory Instrument 1990/335 and Statutory Instrument 1992/345), lists these offences. A copy of the Act and amending legislation is in the Library.

  The Government plan to add the following road traffic offences to the fixed penalty system later this year:

  (i) Overtaking a stationary/moving vehicle at a Pelican, Zebra or Puffin pedestrian crossing;

  (ii) Having a registration mark fitted to a vehicle where the mark is not in accordance with statutory requirements relating to its size, shape and character;

  (iii) Driving on the footway (pavement);

  (iv) Pedal cycle—cycling on the footway (pavement); and

  (v) Pedal cycle—carrying more than one person on a bicycle not constructed or adapted for that purpose.

  In addition, regulations made last year under the Environment Act 1995, which apply within seven local authority areas, provide that local authority officers or other persons authorised by the authority, may issue fixed penalty notices to drivers whose vehicles fail to comply with vehicle exhaust emissions standards when checks are carried out at the roadside. The seven areas in question are:

  Birmingham

  Bristol

  Canterbury

  Glasgow

  Middlesbrough

  Swansea

  Westminster

  The penalty is £60. These regulations also empower the same local authorities to issue fixed penalty notices (penalty £20) to drivers in circumstances where the engine of a stationary vehicle has not been stopped so as to avoid
  470
  noise and exhaust emissions. Police officers are also empowered to issue fixed penalty notices for these offences.

  Detention Centres
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he plans to publish the report of the Chief Inspector of Prisons relating to his unannounced visits to(a) Tinsley House in August 1997 and (b) Campsfield House in October 1997. [37122]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The reports of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons relating to his planned, routine inspection of Tinsley House and his unannounced inspection of Campsfield House are in the process of being printed and we expect to be in a position to publish them in due course.

  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from(a) the Immigration Service and (b) the Chief Inspector of Prisons regarding (i) the content and (ii) the date of publication of the Chief Inspector of Prisons' report on Campsfield House Detention Centre. [37125]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Detailed responses to the report's recommendations have been prepared by the Immigration Service, after consultation with Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons, and put to my right hon. Friend for consideration. He will make a statement in response to the report at the time of publication. The Chief Inspector of Prisons has made no representations to my right hon. Friend on the content or the date of publication of the report. However, a provisional timetable for publication is now in place.

  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library a copy of the contract between Group 4 and the Immigration Service for the running of Campsfield House. [37121]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The contract between Group 4 and the Immigration Service is commercially confidential and it would not be proper to disclose all its details.

  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from the Immigration Service regarding(a) the content and (b) the date of publication of the Chief Inspector of Prisons' report on Tinsley House Detention Centre. [37123]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Detailed responses to the report's recommendations have been prepared by the Immigration Service, after consultation with Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons, and put to my right hon. Friend for consideration. He will make a statement in response to the report at the time of publication.

  Firearms
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects claim ref. HER 10750 to be settled under the firearms compensation scheme. [36672]

  Mr. Michael
  The claim with the police reference number HER 10750 was received in the Firearms Compensation Section on 3 October 1997. As claims are being dealt with in date order, we would predict that the Option A and B elements are likely to be processed in
  471
  around four weeks' time. The Option C elements, which will require individual consideration of the evidence of value provided, will be dealt with at a later date.

  Police (Racial Discrimination)
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the cases since 1980 of Metropolitan police officers applying to the industrial tribunal with claims of racial abuse or discrimination, giving the officer's rank, the dates of claim and of settlement or decision, the result, the award if any, the costs of the police, the costs of the claimant paid by the police, whether the officer was offered or accepted full reinstatement and whether the officer was reduced to half pay or no pay before the end of the case. [36731]

  Mr. Michael
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that the information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  However, he tells me that there are currently 19 race tribunal actions outstanding on the part of 16 officers.

  Number

  Ranks of Officers

  Inspector

  1

  Sergeant

  2

  Constable

  13

  Total

  16

  Status of Officers

  Working within Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

  8

  Left the MPS

  3

  Sick absence—full pay

  3

  Sick absence—reduced pay due to Regulation 46 of Police Regulation 1995

  2

  Private Security Industry
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what regulation applies to the private security industry. [37053]

  Mr. Michael
  No statutory regulation currently applies to the private security industry. We intend to introduce statutory regulation of the private security industry as soon as possible but we will not be able to bring forward early legislation, as we warned before the election. We have recently completed a consultation exercise with the industry and others on the best way to provide a comprehensive, effective and streamlined system for the whole of the private security industry. It is clear from the responses that there is general support for our approach from the industry itself as well as from other respondents and we hope to put forward firm proposals later this year. In the absence of statutory regulation, the industry has taken steps to regulate itself. Several independent Inspectorates exist, inspecting companies to relevant British Standards and the international quality standard BS EN ISO 9000.

  Football Offences
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the bilateral agreements with 472
  Norway and the Republic of Ireland to allow domestic courts to impose restriction orders on those convicted of football offences abroad were agreed. [37075]

  Mr. Michael
  The Football Spectators (Corresponding Offences in Norway) Order 1996 (Statutory Instrument Number 1634) and the Football Spectators (Corresponding Offences in the Republic of Ireland) Order 1996 (Statutory Instrument Number 1635) both came into force on 1 August 1996.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to increase the levels of punishment for crimes committed under the Football Offences Act 1991. [37074]

  Mr. Michael
  The Labour Charter for Football published in 1995 proposed that the threshold for the offence of indecent or racist chanting under section 3 of the Football (Offences) Act 1991 should be lowered to catch chanting by an individual as well as chanting in concert with one or more others. The Football Task Force Report entitled "Eliminating Racism From Football" has endorsed that proposal. We are awaiting a suitable legislative opportunity to introduce this amendment but would look for the practical recommendations contained in the Task Force Report as a way forward until such time as a suitable opportunity arises.

  We are presently conducting a review of all football-related legislation to see whether any further changes should be made.

  Murderers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many convicted murderers placed under hospital orders under the terms of the Mental Health Act 1983 have been released under supervised discharge to the local authority area in which they resided prior to their conviction. [36223]

  Ms Quin
  The information is not available in the form requested, and such information as is centrally retained could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Hospitality
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list planned expenditure on hospitality for April and May, indicating the date, location and purpose of each event. [35111]

  Dr. David Clark
  For these purposes, my answer covers major events planned for April and May which will be paid for from the Cabinet Office's votes. This includes expenditure by the Prime Minister's Office, the Minister without Portfolio's Office as well as the Cabinet Office, Office of Public Service. It is not possible to provide a comprehensive estimate for total expenditure on Ministerial hospitality as the majority of these events will not be finalised until nearer the time.

  The Prime Minister is planning to host ten major events, ranging from informal receptions to formal dinners, half of which are related to the G8 Heads of Government meeting.
  473
  The Chancellor of the Duchy is planning to host one major event with EU Ministers.

  The Minister without Portfolio and the Parliamentary Secretary have no plans to host major events during April and May.

  In addition there are three other events connected with the G8 meeting, which will be hosted by other Ministers, but paid for by the Cabinet Office.

  WALES

    Rural Schools
    Mr. Barry Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to enhance and develop the roles of rural schools. [36683]

    Mr. Hain
    Enhancing and developing the role of schools is essentially a matter for local education authorities and school governing bodies. The White Paper—'Building Excellent Schools Together' sets out the Government's commitment to raise standards in every school in Wales and a programme of action to support local education authorities and governing bodies in achieving this.

    The National Grid for Learning offers significant potential for improving support for schools in rural areas by providing 'on line' access to materials and services. The Welsh Office is currently working on the development of the Grid with LEAs and others.

    Ensuring effective provision of school places while securing a more cost effective education service poses difficult decisions for local authorities given the particular role schools often occupy in rural communities. I have asked LEAs to consider innovative approaches such as federations, amalgamations or groupings as alternatives to school closure. Authorities in west Wales are already exploring this.

    School Journeys
    Mr. Llwyd
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the average travel to school distance for children in rural Wales; and if he will make a statement. [37152]

    Mr. Hain
    The information requested is not available centrally.

    TRADE AND INDUSTRY

      Torture Equipment
      Mr. Baker
      To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the categories of equipment which are regarded as of potential use in torture whose export has been banned since 1 May 1997. [35938]

      Mrs. Roche
      [holding answer 24 March 1998]: In his announcement of 28 July 1997, Official Report, columns 65–66, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary identified certain goods whose export the Government would not allow because there was clear evidence of their use in torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
      474
      Export or transhipment of the majority of these goods is controlled by virtue of their being listed in entry PL5001 in Part III of Schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994 (SI 1994/1191), as set out in Schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) (Amendment No.2) Order 1996 (SI 1996/2663). Export or transhipment of the remainder was brought under control by article 7(8) of the Export of Goods (Control) (Amendment No.3) Order 1997 (SI 1997/2758), which came into force on 15 December 1997.

      Staff Travel
      Mr. Stunell
      To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total number of staff of all grades employed by the Department; and what percentage of these staff were eligible to claim a car mileage allowance on 31 March in each year since 1990. [36165]

      Mrs. Roche
      The total number of staff employed by the Department of Trade and Industry, inclusive of Agencies, as at 31 March in each of the years 1990–1997 is as follows:

      Year

      Number of staff

      1990

      11,802

      1991

      12,419

      1992

      12,301

      1993

      11,497

      1994

      10,737

      1995

      10,168

      1996

      9,727

      1997

      9,096

      Potentially all staff employed as Civil Servants within the Department are eligible to claim car mileage allowance if they use their own vehicles to undertake official business. These figures have been extracted from payroll data.

      Mr. Stunell
      To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the total real term value of(a) staff car mileage claims paid and (b) staff rail fares paid; and what was the total amount of staff car mileage for which reimbursement was made and the percentage change year on year, for each year since 1989–90. [36164]

      Mrs. Roche
      The DTI has devolved to local management the authorisation of travel claims for its staff, subject to checking procedures. The DTI does not record expenditure on staff car mileage claims, or staff rail fares paid, separately from other travel and subsistence expenses paid to staff undertaking departmental business. To provide the information requested would entail disproportionate cost.

      Shareholders Rights
      Mr. Nicholls
      To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the relationship between independent auditing capacity and the protection of shareholders' rights. [36243]

      Mr. Ian McCartney
      [holding answer 30 March 1998]: The Companies Act 1985 requires all companies to lay before their shareholders in general meeting, and file for the public record, independently audited annual accounts and my right hon. Friend the President of

      475
      the Board of Trade has particular powers under the Companies Act 1989 to regulate auditors to ensure that the audit is carried out properly and with integrity and with a proper degree of independence. Labour's Business Manifesto sets out our commitment to ensuring a framework of independent regulation for the accountancy profession, including auditors. We are keeping under review the continuing debate about the appropriate balance of rights and obligations between the auditor, management and shareholders.

      Commercial Debt Repayment
      Mr. Butterfill
      To ask the President of the Board of Trade what statistics her Department has collated on the payment record for commercial debt of Government departments and agencies, NHS trusts and local authorities; what steps are being taken to ensure that the Government's requirements regarding payment within 30 days, as set out in the annexe to the consultation paper, are being adhered to by them; and if payment performance is being monitored. [35439]

      Mrs. Roche
      [holding answer 30 March 1998]: The Government are committed to changing the payment culture in the UK and recognise the importance of the public sector leading by example in paying its invoices promptly.

      Government Departments and their Agencies are required to pay all valid invoices within agreed credit terms or 30 days. They are also required to monitor their payment performance and publish the percentage of invoices paid on time in their annual or departmental reports.

      My hon. Friend the Paymaster General published the league table of Departments' payment performance for the period 1 June 1996 to 31 March 1997 (Cm 662). Additionally, the DTI will produce the next league table for Departments and their agencies for the period 1 April 1997 to 31 March 1998. This will be available before the summer recess.

      The payment performance of the NHS is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. The NHS Trusts are also required to pay valid invoices within agreed credit terms or 30 days. The NHS Executive monitors the payment performance of all NHS Trusts in England on a quarterly basis. The information collected is the percentage of the number of bills paid within this target and the percentage of the value of bills paid within this target. The NHS Executive plans to publish the payment performance of all NHS Trusts in England this summer for the period 1 April 1997 to 31 March 1998.

      The payment performance of Local Authorities is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. Local Authorities are also required to pay their bills promptly. The Audit Commission has set a performance indicator for the current year that all Local Authorities must monitor and publish details of the percentage of their bills paid on time.

      Data relating to prompt payment performance in local authorities will be published by the Audit Commission, from March 1999, identifying local authority performance for the year 1997/98.
      476

      Departmental Staff
      Mr. Donohoe
      To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many staff are employed in Scotland by her Department, or executive agencies responsible to her Department; and where those staff are located. [36209]

      Mrs. Beckett
      On 1 January 1998 there were 261 permanent staff (full time equivalents) employed by my Department, the executive agencies and ACAS in Scotland. The staff were located as follows:

      Aberdeen: 51

      Dundee: 3

      Edinburgh: 71

      Falkirk: 12

      Glasgow: 124.

      EU Structural Funds
      Sir Peter Emery
      To ask the President of the Board of Trade if, in negotiating the reform of the European Union's Structural Fund, she will ensure that Objective 5(B) is not subsumed in Objective 2. [36030]

      Mrs. Roche
      [holding answer 27 March 1998]: The Government welcome the principle of a single Objective 2 covering vulnerable rural, industrial, urban and fisheries areas. The risk of artificially distinguishing between types of area is that some are not considered at all. The Government will argue for flexibility for Member States to target Funds at areas of greatest need.

      Millennium Compliance
      Mrs. Gillan
      To ask the President of the Board of Trade if a Director of Action 2000 has been appointed. [32486]

      Mrs. Roche
      [holding answer 3 March 1998]: The Chairman of Action 2000 has appointed Gwynneth Flower as Director of Action 2000.

      Inward Investment
      Mr. Mitchell
      To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the total amount of inward investment in the UK for each of the past 10 years and the figures for British investment overseas, separately identifying the figures to and from(a) EU and (b) other countries. [36314]

      Mr. Ian McCartney
      The information is in the following tables:

      Net inward direct investment flows to the UK 1987–96

      £ million

      Year

      EU1

      Rest of World

      Total

      1987

      3,607

      5,379

      8,986

      1988

      5,282

      6,280

      11,562

      1989

      5,617

      11,788

      17,405

      1990

      7,628

      9,527

      17,155

      1991

      4,578

      3,840

      8,418

      1992

      3,433

      5,383

      8,816

      1993

      1,590

      8,281

      9,871

      1994

      3,367

      2,679

      6,046

      1995

      3,555

      9,099

      12,654

      1996

      3,891

      12,193

      16,084

      477

      Net outward direct investment flows by the UK 1987–96

      £ million

      Year

      EU1

      Rest of World

      Total

      1987

      2,250

      16,909

      19,159

      1988

      5,360

      15,556

      20,916

      1989

      5,941

      15,550

      21,491

      1990

      5,103

      5,005

      10,108

      1991

      3,919

      5,385

      9,304

      1992

      4,613

      5,494

      10,107

      1993

      6,146

      11,212

      17,358

      1994

      8,278

      12,762

      21,040

      1995

      9,457

      18,147

      27,604

      1996

      13,046

      8,968

      22,014

      EU15 countries throughout

      Source:

      ONS Business Monitor MA4, Overseas Direct Investment

      Dounreay
      Mr. Maclennan
      To ask the President of the Board of Trade if a decision has been reached regarding the future management of the Dounreay Shaft and Wet Silo; and if she will make a statement. [37449]

      Mr. Battle
      The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority's recommendation to me that the radioactive waste in the Dounreay Intermediate Level Waste Shaft and in the Wet Silo should be retrieved for treatment and storage has been accepted by the Government.

      It is now clear that the Shaft does not provide standards of waste disposal that are acceptable today and that retrieval is the best practicable environmental option. It has the support of the relevant regulators, the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII) and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA), and of the Government's advisory bodies, the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee and the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment. Special interest groups have also shown support of the retrieval option.

      This decision has been taken following detailed engineering studies completed recently by the UKAEA, who operate the Dounreay site, which have shown that it is now technically feasible to recover waste from the Shaft in a safe and environmentally acceptable manner.

      I have also accepted the UKAEA's recommendation that it is now time to plan for the removal and treatment of wastes stored in the Wet Silo.

      Retrieval and treatment will provide a long term solution to the problem of what to do with the waste placed in the Shaft and Wet Silo over the last four decades which has caused such concern to the public.

      The Government believe that nothing is more important than safety in the management of nuclear decommissioning and radioactive waste. We are fully committed to caring for the environment and to taking action to deal with the difficult legacies from the past.

      I expect that the difficult task of retrieving this waste will be tackled effectively over the coming years and will demonstrate that the UK is taking a world lead when dealing with nuclear decommissioning and radioactive waste management challenges.
      478
      Naturally, in the early stages of such a large and complex project, there are significant uncertainties about the costs. The most recent estimates presented to me by the UKAEA suggest that total indicative costs may lie in the range £215-£355 million. These costs, which are already budgeted for, will be incurred over approximately the next 25 years and will be met from public funds. This includes the first stage of the work which will be for the UKAEA to develop its plans by completing hydrogeological and engineering studies aimed at minimising technical risk and refining predicted costs. They expect expenditure on this work will amount to about £4.5 million over the next five years. At each stage of the project the UKAEA's detailed plans will require approval from the NII and SEPA.

      Trade Union Recognition
      Sir Raymond Powell
      To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many meetings she has had with the CBI concerning trades union recognition since 1 May 1997. [36834]

      Mr. Ian McCartney
      DTI Ministers have met the CBI on a number of occasions since 1 May. Trade union recognition has been amongst the issues discussed.

      Sir Raymond Powell
      To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many meetings her Department has had with the TUC to discuss trades union recognition since 1 May. [36833]

      Mr. Ian McCartney
      DTI Ministers have had a number of meetings with the TUC since 1 May at which various issues, including trade union recognition, have been discussed.

      Radiocommunications Agency
      Mr. Swinney
      To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she 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 Radiocommunications Agency; what percentage of total staff are based (i) at head office (ii) in London and (iii) in Scotland; and what is the percentage of salary and running costs incurred in (A) Scotland and (B) London. [36137]

      Mrs. Roche
      (a) The Radiocommunications Agency's head office is located at New King's Beam House, 22 Upper Ground, London SE1 9SA. (b) For the 11 months to 28 February 1998, the running costs for head office were £8,514k. (c) For the same period, the salary costs were £8,613k. (d) The number of staff based at head office at 28 February was 295.

      At 28 February 1998, (i) 57 per cent. of the Agency's staff were based at head office, (ii) 60 per cent. in London and, (iii) 2 per cent. in Scotland.

      For the 11 months to 28 February 1998, (A) 1 per cent. of salary and running costs were incurred in Scotland and (B) 63 per cent. of salary and running costs were incurred in London.

      Figures do not total to 100 per cent. as there are Agency Sites outside the stated areas.
      479

      International Technology Service
      Mr. Swinney
      To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the(a) locations, (b) running costs, (c) salary costs and (d) number of staff of the International Technology Service; and what percentage of staff are based in (i) London and (ii) Scotland. [36234]

      Mrs. Beckett
      [holding answer 27 March 1998]: The International Technology Service is managed by DTI Headquarters in Central London and will have estimated programme costs of £4M in the current financial year.

      Total running costs for the current financial year are expected to be £405k of which salary costs will be £331.5k.

      The Service is managed by ten full time equivalent DTI staff, all of whom are based in London.

      Invest in Britain Bureau
      Mr. Swinney
      To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the(a) running costs, (b) staff costs and (c) locations of each of the UK-based offices of the Invest in Britain Bureau. [36237]

      Mrs. Beckett
      [holding answer 27 March 1998]: For 1997/98 the gross running costs budget, net of VAT is £2,445,000 of which staff costs are £1,720,000. In addition, the pay costs of three posts are currently being funded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. All Invest in Britain Bureau UK staff are based in London.

      Outward Missions
      Mr. Swinney
      To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the outward missions organised by her Department in 1996–97 and the companies involved in each. [36187]

      Mrs. Roche
      [holding answer 26 March 1998]: A list of missions organised and supported under the Department's Outward Mission Scheme in 1996–97 together with the

      Name

      Initial cost (£)

      Final cost (£)

      Scheduled date

      Actual date

      DTI HQ

      ECLIPS

      2,900,000

      3,000,000

      June 1993

      March 1995

      IDIS

      5,540,000

      6,921,000

      December 1993

      December 1994

      Birds

      298,000

      238,000

      December 1993

      December 1993

      Marquis

      336,000

      289,000

      January 1994

      April 1994

      Insurance EC directives

      965,000

      949,000

      January 1996

      January 1996

      CWC

      1,300,000

      900,000

      May 1996

      December 1996

      Osprey

      23,100,000

      24,170,000

      September 1996

      March 1997

      Paris

      1,100,000

      n/a

      February 1997

      ongoing

      RPS

      1,900,000

      1,900,000

      June 1997

      October 1997

      Insurance deregulation

      2,012,000

      1,671,000

      September 1997

      September 1997

      Indigo

      4,900,000

      n/a

      March 1998

      n/a

      Mandrin

      1,700,000

      n/a

      September 1998

      n/a

      ECO

      790,000

      n/a

      September 1998

      n/a

      INSS

      BANCS

      1,294,000

      3,400,000

      March 1992

      January 1994

      LOLA

      2,443,000

      2,749,000

      April 1996

      April 1996

      ETS

      ETS upgrade project

      950,000

      n/a

      July 1998

      —

      Non-Departmental Bodies

      VKAEA

      SMART

      190,000

      200,000

      March 1996

      March 1996

      FIS

      400,000

      370,000

      June 1997

      July 1997

      480
      name and telephone number of the organiser will be placed in the Library of the House. Over 4,700 companies took part in 219 missions. The organisers can be contacted for details of the companies participating.

      The Outward Mission Scheme is primarily aimed at providing practical and financial support to small to medium sized UK companies relatively new to the markets concerned to travel overseas as part of a group to promote UK exports of goods and services. Ministerial delegations and delegations led by senior officials are sometimes organised outside the scheme by the Department and other Government Departments where the nature of the event and status/experience of the companies would make financial support inappropriate. Details of ministerial missions organised by the Department since May 1997 were provided on 23 February 1998, Official Report, columns 106–07, in response to a question tabled by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan).

      Computer Systems
      Mr. Clifton-Brown
      To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list each major new computer system that(a) her Department, (b) non-departmental bodies and (c) agencies under her responsibility have purchased in the last five years; what was the initial purchase cost and what was the final cost; what was each system's (i) planned and (ii) actual date of commissioning; what major computer systems will be purchased by bodies in categories (a), (b) and (c) in the next financial year; and what is their estimated cost. [27849]

      Mrs. Beckett
      The information requested on major computer systems installed within the last 5 years is set out in the table. Major Computer Systems installed by the Department's next step Agencies, with the exception of the Insolvency Service and ETS, are not included, and I have asked them to respond direct to the hon. Member. The table also excludes privately financed projects where the installation/purchase costs of the IT systems will be recovered by suppliers through service charges.
      481

      Name

      Initial cost (£)

      Final cost (£)

      Scheduled date

      Actual date

      Gas Consumers Council

      FileServer Replacement project

      207,000

      207,000

      February 1995

      February 1995

      Workstation Replacement project

      135,000

      135,000

      October 1995

      October 1995

      Complaints System

      123,000

      123,000

      April 1996

      April 1996

      Workstation Update project

      133,000

      133,000

      August 1998

      n/a

      Letter from John Holden to Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, dated 31 March 1998:
      I have been asked to reply to your question to the President of the Board of Trade concerning major new computer systems purchased over the past 5 years.

      Major systems in last 5 years purchased by Companies House

      Estimated purchase cost (£000)

      Final purchase cost or cost to date if on-going (£000)

      Estimated expenditure for 1998/99 (£000) for on-going or new

      Estimated commission date

      Actual commission date

      Latest revised date if on-going

      Document Processing

      1,167

      1,287

      —

      03/01/95

      27/02/95

      —

      Terminal Systems

      207

      205

      —

      02/06/95

      28/07/95

      —

      Accounts Image

      1,403

      1,430

      —

      28/02/98

      Still on-going

      March 1998

      Companies House Direct

      1,334

      1,176

      —

      30/06/97

      29/09/97

      —

      Customer Accounts

      216

      219

      —

      01/08/97

      29/09/97

      —

      Doc Proc Enhancement

      168

      186

      —

      04/04/97

      20/01/98

      —

      Office Systems Stage 1

      529

      513

      —

      31/12/97

      Still on-going

      30/04/98

      Input Systems/Electronic Filing

      250

      95

      70

      30/04/98

      Still on-going

      30/06/98

      Input Systems/ICR

      690

      0

      390

      30/09/98

      Still on-going

      30/09/98

      Input Systems/Workflow

      Information not required

      430

      No further information requested for systems purchased in 1998/99

      Office Systems Stage 2

      400

      Search Room Development

      500

      Agency Accounts

      300

      Wider Image

      1,770

      Data Distribution

      270

      Note:

      In-house development staff costs excluded from all figures shown.

      Letter from Jim Norton to Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, dated 31 March 1998:
      The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply directly to your Parliamentary Question about the purchase of computer systems.
      For the purpose of this reply we have interpreted "major new computer systems" as those costing over £200,000. The information you requested, in respect of computer systems purchased by the Radiocommunications Agency in the last 5 years, is shown in the enclosed table.

      Radiocommunications Agency Information on major new computer systems

      £

      ALPACA

      Outstations Networking

      Estimated cost

      2,165,000

      849,059

      Actual cost

      3,328,000

      874,059

      Planned commissioning date

      October 1996

      March 1994

      Actual commissioning date

      March 1999

      March 1994

      Notes:

      1. ALPACA is the Accounts, Ledgers, Purchasing and Cost Attribution System.

      2. The data for ALPACA for actual cost and actual commissioning date are the latest forecasts.

      3. The disparity between the planned and latest forecasts for ALPACA is the result of a major change in the scope of the project.

      4. Outstations Networking was a turnkey project with ICL to install a Local Area Network between the Radiocommunications HQ, Baldock, Whyteleaf and the other Regional Offices.
      482
      The information you require is shown on the attached table.

      Letter from P. R. S. Harmack to Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, dated 31 March 1998:
      I am replying for the Patent Office to your Parliamentary Question to the President of the Board of Trade about the cost and timing of major new computer systems.
      The information you seek is given in the attached table.

      The Patent Office Major computer systems purchased

      System

      Planned cost1 (£000)

      Final cost1 (£000)

      Planned date of commissioning

      Actual date of commissioning

      CUES

      295

      354

      March 1996

      October 1996

      DARE

      437

      490

      May 1996

      May 1997

      TERN

      974

      1,028

      November 1996

      January 1997

      DRIMS

      443

      2—

      May 1998

      2—

      ISSP

      642

      2—

      May 1998

      2—

      IBIS

      2,123

      2—

      January 1999

      2—

      1 The costs include both the purchase cost from the external supplier plus the in-house staff costs associated with implementing the systems.

      2 Not yet commissioned.

      Notes:

      CUES—On-line customer enquiry system for patent, trade mark and design status.

      DARE—Database of European classified patent search files.

      TERN—Trade Mark examination reporting system.

      DRIMS—Designs registry image management system.

      ISSP—Intranet search system for patent information.

      IBIS—Integrated bibliographic and image system for trade marks.
      483
      Letter from Dr. Seton Bennett to Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, dated 31 March 1998:
      The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply on behalf of the National Weights and Measures Laboratory to your question about the purchase of major computer systems.
      This Agency has not purchased any major computer system in the last five years and we have no plans for any major expenditure on systems during 1998/99.

    SOCIAL SECURITY

      Employee Share Schemes
      Ms Buck
      To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when changes in the Budget relating to employee share schemes will be reflected in National Insurance contribution rules. [37362]

      Mr. Denham
      We are proposing two changes to National Insurance contribution rules which will bring them closer to the income tax rules in relation to shares and share options. This will make for greater clarity for employers and help reduce the administrative burden the system places on them.

      First, we intend to bring forward at Report stage in the House of Lords a new clause for inclusion in the Social Security Bill. That clause will change the National Insurance treatment of shares that are subject to the risk of forfeiture or that are convertible. The change will align the treatment of these shares under National Insurance legislation with the tax legislation announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget.

      Alignment of National Insurance with the income tax rules will bring forward some important changes to make the National Insurance on shares and options easier for business to administer while guarding against their use in avoidance schemes.

      The new clause will be tabled as soon as possible.

      It will mirror the proposed income tax treatment of remuneration in shares subject to forfeiture or conversion. To keep to a minimum the period over which the tax and National Insurance positions differ, the clause will apply to shares awarded from the date on which it is tabled. We expect that to be before the end of the current Committee stage in the House of Lords.

      The second change we propose is to match my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's extension of the "seven year rule" for share options when we align the National Insurance treatment of share options with the income tax position. Under the current income tax arrangements the award of an option over shares is taxed at the time of grant rather than exercise only where the options can be exercised more than seven years later. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has announced his intention to extend that limit to ten years. We intend to mirror this in future National Insurance legislation. When the relevant regulations made under clause 50 of the Social Security Bill come into force they will replace the National Insurance liability on grant of options with a liability on exercise, except in the case of options which can be exercised more than ten years later. This would take the great majority of options outside liability for National
      484
      Insurance on grant, thus reducing the administrative burden on business while continuing to protect the Exchequer.

      Inland Revenue approved own-company share schemes remain excluded from liability for National Insurance contributions.

      Benefit Appeals
      Mr. Öpik
      To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment she has made of the amount of money that will not be claimed as a result of the change in backdating benefits following a successful appeal; and if she will make a statement. [36088]

      Mr. Denham
      The backdating proposals in Clause 72 of the Social Security Bill will not affect arrears of benefit following a successful appeal on a claim for that benefit. The change affects only the period before a claim is made or treated as made. A claim for benefit will have been made before decisions on that claim can be appealed.

      Pensioners
      Mr. Webb
      To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the effect on(a) gross expenditure on retirement pensions, (b) income tax revenues and (c) expenditure on means-tested benefits of raising the basic state pension to the level of income support, with the pension rising with age to reflect the current structure of age-related premiums, but not to reflect premiums for disabilities or other additional needs. [34127]

      Mr. Denham
      It is estimated that the gross cost of raising the basic pension to the level of the income support age-related premiums would be £3.4 billion in 1998–99. Income tax revenue would be increased by an estimated £0.2 billion. Information on income related benefit offsets is not available.

      Notes:
      1. Gross costs have been provided by Government Actuary's Department (GAD). A pensioner with a category A pension receives an additional amount equal to the difference between RP and IS for a single person. A married woman with a category B pension receives an additional amount equal to the difference between RP and the additional amount paid to an IS couple above that paid to a single person.
      2. Tax effects provided by Inland Revenue.
      3. The Family Resources Survey does not hold sufficiently detailed information on categories of pension to allow a consistent estimate of income related benefit offsets to be provided.
      4. Costs rounded to the nearest £100 million.

      Mr. Letwin
      To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners were in receipt of payments from occupational pensions in 1995; and what was the average payment received. [34705]

      Mr. Denham
      [holding answer 16 March 1998]: It is estimated that 4.9 million pensioner couples or single pensioners were in receipt of payments from occupational pensions in 1995–96, receiving average payments of £78.70 (mean) and £44.10 (median).

      Notes:
      1. This estimate is based on the Pensioners' Income Series. A pensioner couple is defined as a couple where the man is over State Pension Age.

      485
      2. In the Pensioners' Incomes Series estimates of the number of pensioner units in receipt of occupational pension income are based upon data from the Family Expenditure Survey which is adjusted to reflect extrapolations of the number of recipients in the Government Actuary's Department Survey of Occupational Pensions (1987 and 1991).
      3. Incomes are in pounds per week at July 1995 prices, and are rounded to the nearest 10 pence.
      4. Numbers are rounded to the nearest 0.05 million.
      5. The Pensioners' Income Series 1995–96 is to be re-issued, as it contains a number of inaccuracies identified since publication. The figures above are not affected by these inaccuracies. However, other information concerning receipt of occupational pensions is affected.

      Unclaimed Benefits
      Mr. Öpik
      To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate she has made of the value of unclaimed benefit since 1 May 1997; and if she will make a statement. [36104]

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

      Estimated amounts of income related benefits unclaimed in 1995–96

      £ million

      Benefit

      Estimated amount unclaimed

      Housing Benefit

      410–760

      Council Tax Benefit

      370–620

      Income Support

      1,210–1,870

      Family Credit

      300

      Note:

      Figures are only available for the main Income Related Benefits, and for 1995–96 at the latest.

      Source:

      Income Related Benefits Estimates of Take-Up in 1995–96.

      Disability Benefit
      Mr. Öpik
      To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security for what reasons disability benefit restored on appeal is not backdated to the time of the refusal of benefit; and if she will make a statement. [36087]

      Mr. Denham
      The fact that a decision is changed on appeal does not, necessarily, mean that the earlier decision was incorrect. A person's condition may have deteriorated since they made their appeal or they may produce fresh evidence to the tribunal. The date from which benefit is awarded will also be determined by the tribunal. For example, where an award is made because of a subsequent change in the person's circumstances, benefit will be paid from the date of the change rather than the date of the decision appealed against.

      Lone Parents
      Mr. Webb
      To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many lone parents will be(a) better off, (b) unaffected and (c) worse off in total as the overall result of the increases in child benefit and related benefits planned for November 1998 and April 1999, the proposed Working Families Tax Credit and the cuts in benefits for
      486
      lone parents already announced; and what is the average gain of those who are better off and the average loss of those who are worse off. [35854]

      Mr. Field
      [holding answer 23 March 1998]: The information is set out in the table.

      £

      Better off

      No change

      Worse off

      Number

      1,470,000

      255,000

      60,000

      Average gain/loss

      6.30

      0

      -2

      Notes:

      1. Numbers rounded to the nearest 5,000.

      2. Information from 1995–96 Family Resources Survey uprated to 1998–99 prices, earnings and benefit levels. Budget policy changes to Married Couples Allowance and National Insurance have been excluded.

      3. Announced lone parent policy changes due to be implemented in April 1999 have been included in the 1998–99 benefit system at appropriate rates.

      4. Lone Parent caseloads affected by the removal of entitlement to lone parent rates for new cases are adjusted to be consistent with forecasts for the end of the financial year 1998–99.

      Students
      Mr. Viggers
      To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will amend the Social Security Benefits (Student Loans and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1990 to enable students not in receipt of loans to be assessed on their income in order that they may be eligible for free dental and prescription services. [36434]

      Mr. Field
      Since 1990, the student loan has been an integral part of student support. Students are not obliged to take up a loan if they feel no need to do so. However as loans are made available from public funds they cannot be ignored in calculating entitlement to further help from public funds.

      Students in receipt of a loan may still be entitled to free NHS dental treatment and prescriptions on low income grounds.

      Housing Benefit
      Mr. Bob Russell
      To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals she has to reduce the assumed interest on savings in respect of granting housing benefit. [36355]

      Mr. Field
      The formula for the calculation of assumed or notional income from capital does not represent any assumed rate of interest. It does, however, avoid the many practical difficulties that would arise if actual income were taken into account when assessing entitlement to Housing Benefit. It also strikes a balance between encouraging people to save and an expectation that people with more substantial savings can make some contribution towards their living expenses.

      Asylum Seekers
      Ms Oona King
      To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many persons given extended exceptional leave to remain were wrongly refused benefit in the last 12 months; and what was the cost of correcting such decisions. [36246]
      487
      Mr. Field
      The information is not available. Following representations from asylum seeker and refugee organisations, revised guidance was issued to Benefits Agency staff in November 1997 which makes clear that where a claimant applies to the Home Office to extend their limited exceptional leave to remain before the period expires they will continue to be entitled to benefit pending the Home Office decision.

      Benefits Agency (Training)
      Mr. Wigley
      To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what training Benefits Agency staff receive in respect of the particular needs of disabled people. [35582]

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

      Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Dafydd Wigley, dated 30 March 1998:
      The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked my to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about what training Benefits Agency (BA) staff receive in respect of the particular needs of disabled people.
      The BA aims to ensure that all our customers have equal access to the benefits system, and that wherever possible, our services can accommodate their individual needs. BA staff that deal with customers are trained in dealing with people with disabilities. The BA recognises the need to develop appreciation of all equal opportunity issues, and as such, provides training in serving the needs of the community. It is our policy to work in partnership with organisations from the voluntary sector to identify areas where improvements could be made and to work together to make the necessary changes.
      You may also be interested to note that the BA operates a dedicated telephone helpline to meet the special needs of people with disabilities. Staff on the Benefit Enquiry Line (BEL) provide advice and information about social security benefits and how to claim them. They can also provide help and assistance completing disability claim forms. In addition to the full range of social security benefits, the initial training for the operators includes extensive disability awareness. This is supported by ongoing workshops which concentrate on the individual needs of customers suffering from a wide range of disabilities. Most recently this has included awareness sessions on the problems encountered by people with Mental Health problems.
      The Government is determined that disabled people should be dealt with properly and fairly; they should have sufficient information about what is required of them to allow them to provide the required level of information about the effect of their disability.
      Each of our managers is responsible for providing training which will help staff to meet the needs of their customers. We actively encourage them to use the expertise and support available from organisations and the voluntary sector. To assist managers, we have provided them with information on the awareness programmes and services available from a range of organizations.
      I hope you find this reply helpful.

      Winter Fuel Payments
      Mr. Davidson
      To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what reforms will be made to the distribution system for winter fuel payments for next year, to ensure that the £20 sum reaches those who qualify; [35297]

      (2) how many single pensioners awarded a £10 Winter Fuel Payment have subsequently appealed and been granted a further £10, in (a) Glasgow, Pollok, (b) Glasgow, (c) Scotland and (d) in the United Kingdom; [35296]
      488
      (3) what steps are being taken to ensure that winter fuel payments for 1997–98 at £20 are reaching those single pensioners in tenement homes, where a single house number covers several separate households; and what monitoring her Department will undertake to ensure payments reach such pensioners. [35298]

      Mr. Denham
      Winter Fuel Payments are one of a number of initiatives the Government have taken to help the vulnerable people, especially the elderly, keep warm in the winter. A total of £400 million has been committed for this winter and next, to help pensioners with fuel bills to pay. This is the first time any Government have provided additional help with heating costs to all pensioners receiving a retirement pension or one of a number of other qualifying benefits.

      The making of this winter's payments has been an enormous and unprecedented exercise. In order to establish all eligible pensioners, correctly identify pensioner households, and determine the amount each should receive, it was necessary to correlate data in around fifteen million computer records, involving fifteen qualifying benefits, across nine computer systems. Overall, almost ten million payments will have been made to over seven million pensioner households by the end of March.

      The administration of winter fuel payments is a matter for Peter Mathison, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend.

      Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Ian Davidson, dated 30 March 1998:
      The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions concerning winter fuel payments.
      The making of almost ten million winter fuel payments to over seven million pensioner households before the end of March 1998 has been a challenging task for the Benefits Agency. In order to establish all eligible pensioners, correctly identify pensioner households, and determine the amount each should receive, it was necessary to match around fifteen million computer records, involving fifteen qualifying benefits, across nine computer systems. We expect that every eligible pensioner will have received a payment before the end of March 1998. This has been achieved whilst maintaining normal benefit business.
      Planning for next winter's payments has already begun. Operational experience from the delivery of this winter's payments will be taken into account and changes will be made where considered necessary.
      Around one and a half million of the poorest pensioners, those receiving Income Support or income-based Jobseeker's Allowance, received their payment during January. In order to determine whether each of the other eligible pensioners were entitled to a payment of £20 or £10 it was necessary to undertake an exercise of data correlation of all addresses held in Departmental records. Where only one eligible person was identified as living at an address a payment of £20 was made. Where more than one eligible person was identified as living at an address a payment of £10 was made.
      Where official records showed that an address contained a number of separate households, for example numbered flats or bedsits, each separately identifiable unit was treated as a separate address for the purposes of determining the number of eligible pensioners in a household. Therefore, where only one common address was recorded for more than one eligible person, it was not possible to determine which, if any, lived in a household where there was no other eligible person. As a result, some eligible pensioners who live alone, but share a common address with other eligible persons, will have been sent a payment for £10 when they should have received £20.

      489
      The letter which accompanies the payment clearly explains the entitlement conditions and informs anyone who received a £10 payment, but satisfies the conditions for a £20 payment, to contact the Benefits Agency Office which deals with their pension, or telephone the Winter Fuel Helpline, to request the balance. Requests for a review of the original decision to pay £10 are being dealt with as a matter of priority, particularly in the case of tenement residents.
      Adopting this approach aimed to ensure that all payments were made as quickly as possible and disproportionate administration costs were not incurred.
      The information requested for Glasgow Pollok, Glasgow, Scotland and the United Kingdom is not currently available. This is due to the fact that those payments are still in the process of being issued. It is anticipated that this information will be available some time after the end of April. I will provide the information requested once it is available.
      Thank you for the opportunity to explain the position.

      ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

        Rail Freight
        Mr. Brady
        To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the environmental impact of increased levels of freight being transported by rail. [35448]

        Mr. Prescott
        Moving freight by rail helps the environment by reducing total road vehicle emissions and noise. It also improves road safety and relieves traffic congestion. We have already taken a number of initiatives to encourage railfreight. Others will be announced in the next few months.

        Water Companies (Regulation)
        Mr. Gordon Marsden
        To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures are being evaluated by his Department to improve the regulation of the water companies. [35450]

        Mr. Meacher
        The proposals on utility regulation set out in the Government's Green Paper "A fair deal for consumers" will apply to the regulation of the water industry. We will also publish shortly proposals for consultation on a new approach to water charging, and the Director General is continuing his periodic review of water price limits.

        Local Government (Corporation Tax)
        Mr. Gibb
        To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will estimate the likely cost to local government pension funds in 1998–99 of the abolition of advance corporation tax credit. [35452]

        Mr. Raynsford
        The abolition of advance corporation tax credits is one of many factors to be taken into account as part of the actuarial valuation of the local authority pension funds which are about to begin. Information from the exercise will be available shortly.

        Mr. Swayne
        To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received from local authorities over the abolition of the advance corporation tax credit. [35457]
        490
        Mr. Raynsford
        Representations have been received from a number of individual local authorities as well as from the Local Government Association and the United Kingdom Steering Committee on Local Authority pensions.

        Racing Pigeons
        Mr. Canavan
        To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement about the progress of the study being conducted of the threat to racing pigeons caused by predators. [35453]

        Angela Eagle
        There is little quantitative and qualitative data available about the causes and scale of loss of racing pigeons. To address this gap in knowledge, my Department let a research contract to the Hawk and Owl Trust to assess the impact of raptor predation on pigeons and to investigate the effectiveness of non-lethal deterrents. The research is progressing to an agreed timetable and the findings of this research should be reported by the end of September 1998.

        Brown-field Development
        Mr. Forth
        To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his current target for development of brown-field sites. [35454]

        Mr. Raynsford
        The Government expect local authorities to be able to raise the national proportion of new homes to be built on previously developed land, including conversions of existing buildings, to 60 per cent. over the next 10 years. We also expect the regional conferences of local authorities to bring forward regional recycling targets.

        Water Efficiency
        Mrs. Brinton
        To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make it his policy that local authorities in areas where there is a water shortage should, as a condition of planning permission, be able to insist that new homes are fitted with(a) grey water recycling systems and (b) other water-efficient devices. [35455]

        Mr. Meacher
        The new water regulations which we intend to make later this year will set demanding standards for water efficiency which will apply to all new homes.

        Urban Sprawl
        Mr. Steen
        To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he has taken to combat urban sprawl. [35456]

        Mr. Caborn
        The Government expect local authorities to be able to raise the national proportion of new homes to be built on previously developed land, including conversions of existing buildings, to 60 per cent. over the next 10 years. We also expect the regional conferences of local authorities to bring forward regional recycling targets. In addition, we have reaffirmed our commitment to national planning policies which discourage urban sprawl, such as those on Green Belts, the protection of the countryside, town centres and the pursuit of sustainable patterns of development.
        491

        "Opportunities for Change"
        Mr. Dafis
        To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what are the arrangements for consultation on "Opportunities for Change". [35458]

        Mr. Meacher
        The consultation document "Opportunities for Change" was launched on 4 February. There is also a separate public leaflet with a reply-paid response card. Both documents are available on the Internet. The Government have arranged a series of regional events across the country to publicise the consultation. All responses will be taken into consideration in the preparation of a new national sustainable development strategy, to be published later this year.

        Channel Tunnel Rail Link
        Mr. Timms
        To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact of the channel tunnel rail link on regeneration in the Thames Gateway area. [35459]

        Angela Eagle
        When the previous Government decided to commit £1.8 billion, at current prices, of public subsidy, plus public assets, to the project, the worth of the regeneration benefit was estimated to be about £500 million.

        Redevelopment Sites
        Sir Sydney Chapman
        To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on progress on identifying derelict or unused urban sites suitable for redevelopment. [35460]

        Mr. Caborn
        We are setting up a National Land-use Database which will, for the first time, produce a comprehensive national assessment of the amount of previously-developed land available for re-use. Initial results should be available by January 1999. In addition, many local authorities are currently undertaking housing land capability studies to inform their development plans.

        Local Government Finance
        Mr. Paice
        To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received from authorities in the shires on local government finance in 1998–99. [35461]

        Ms Armstrong
        The Department received 184 written representations from shire counties and districts within the deadline for responses. I, and other Ministers at the Department, also met 21 delegations from the shire counties and 35 from the shire districts during the consultation period.

        Mr. Lansley
        To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the local authorities in England which have received an increase in standard spending assessment of 13 per cent. or more in 1998–99. [35465]

        Ms Armstrong
        Three English local authorities received increases in SSA of 13 per cent. or more. They were Easington, Wear Valley, and Sedgefield.
        492

        Wildlife and Countryside Act
        Mr. Bob Russell
        To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had on the revision of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. [35462]

        Angela Eagle
        We are currently having a series of discussions with a range of interested organisations on the need to revise parts of the Wildlife and Countryside Act.

        New Housing
        Mr. St. Aubyn
        To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will adopt a target of two thirds of new housing development being on brown-field sites. [35464]

        Mr. Raynsford
        No.

        Emissions Reduction
        Mr. Boswell
        To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action he is taking to implement the United Kingdom's Kyoto commitments on emissions. [35466]

        Mr. Meacher
        Under the United Kingdom Presidency, we will be considering at the meeting of the Environment Council in June how to share out between Member States the legally binding 8 per cent. target agreed by the European Union at Kyoto. We then intend to consult on a programme of measures which will largely focus on delivering our legally binding commitment from Kyoto as well as considering how we might move towards our 20 per cent. aim. We will be looking at the scope for savings from improved energy efficiency by business and in the home; lower transport emissions; and an increase in the electricity generated from renewables and combined heat and power.

        Amazonian Parrot
        Mr. Dalyell
        To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his Department's policy under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species in respect of the listing of the Amazonian parrot. [35468]

        Angela Eagle
        Of the 31 species of Amazonian parrot, 13 are listed on Appendix I of CITES and Annex A of the European Regulation governing trade in Member States. This means that international trade in wild specimens of these species is effectively banned. The remaining 18 species are listed on CITES Appendix H and Annex B of the implementing EU Regulation, which means that trade in these is licensed and closely monitored to ensure that it remains below levels at which the species might become endangered.

        International trade controls are essential for the survival of many threatened species. The Government fully support the listing on CITES of any species threatened with extinction, and rigorous enforcement of the controls in both range and consumer states.

        Leasehold Reform
        Mrs. Lait
        To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to reform leasehold tenure. [35469]
        493
        Mr. Raynsford
        We are not satisfied with the current state of leasehold law and intend to bring forward a new package of reforms to assist leaseholders. We are currently considering the scope and practicability of possible new measures and will be consulting interested parties later this year.

        West Coast Main Line
        Mr. Dalyell
        To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) of 5 March 1998,Official Report, column 699, when he next plans to meet the franchising director to discuss levels of investment on the west coast main line. [35478]

        Ms Glenda Jackson
        I have regular meetings with the Franchising Director to discuss a variety of passenger railway issues. I have no current plans to discuss the West Coast Main Line with him.

        Trunk Road Scheme Review
        Mr. Tyler
        To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the methodology of his review of major trunk road schemes. [35479]

        Dr. Strang
        We are developing a New Appraisal Framework to assist our examination of options for tackling problems on the road network against five criteria—integration, accessibility, safety, economy and environmental impact. We intend to publish further details with the report of the Roads Review later this year.

        Public Transport
        Mr. Bob Russell
        To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to increase the percentage of journeys made using public transport. [35480]

        Ms Glenda Jackson
        As we have made clear from the outset, this Government are committed to developing a sustainable transport policy. Reducing dependence on the car and promoting greater use of more attractive public transport, and safer walking and cycling, will be central themes in the Integrated Transport White Paper which we will publish later in the Spring.

        Mr. Boswell
        To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent representations he has received on rural public transport services. [35481]

        Dr. Strang
        We have received numerous written representations in response to our consultation on developing an integrated transport strategy. Ministers and officials from my Department have also met a wide range of organisations representing rural interests to discuss the best way to improve transport services in rural areas.

        Mr. Drew
        To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to increase public transport provision in rural areas. [35487]

        Dr. Strang
        Our election Manifesto included a commitment to protect transport services in rural areas. As evidence of that commitment, my right hon. Friend the 494
        Chancellor announced an additional £50 million a year to support public transport in rural areas in his Budget statement of 17 March.

        Railway Services
        Mr. Canavan
        To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to make railway service providers more accountable to the public. [35482]

        Ms Glenda Jackson
        We are committed to creating a new Rail Authority, to introducing more effective and accountable regulation, and to ensuring that the public subsidy serves the public interest. Our proposals will be published in our forthcoming White Paper on integrated transport policy.

        Cleaner Buses and Lorries
        Miss Melanie Johnson
        To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures he proposes to encourage investment in cleaner buses and lorries. [35483]

        Ms Glenda Jackson
        The Chancellor announced at the last budget that the graduated VED scheme for buses and lorries of an incentive of up to £500 for those vehicles meeting stringent emissions standards would begin on 1 January 1999. He also announced the creation of a greater duty differential between ordinary diesel and ultra low sulphur diesel, providing a greater incentive for operators to use this cleaner fuel, and that the Government will consult on how bus fuel rebate can better be targeted to help operators who run cleaner vehicles.

        Mobile Phones
        Miss Begg
        To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement about the use of mobile phones while driving. [35484]

        Dr. Strang
        On 16 March 1998, my noble Friend the Minister for Roads announced the launch of a publicity campaign to make clear to motorists the dangers of using hand-held mobile phones while driving.

        Rural Traffic Management
        Mrs. McGuire
        To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on best practice in rural traffic management. [35485]

        Dr. Strang
        My Department is participating in the Countryside Commission's Countryside Traffic Measures Group, the aim of which is to research and develop good practice guidance on rural traffic management designed with sensitivity to the countryside environment. The Department has commissioned the Transport Research Laboratory to monitor six demonstration schemes being implemented by local authorities who are part of the group; A591 safe cycling zone in Cumbria; Dartmoor signing audit in Devon; Brockenhurst village calming in Hampshire; A149 village calming in Norfolk; Occold 20 mph zone in Suffolk; and Dorking box traffic management in Surrey.
        495

        London Transport
        Mr. Simon Hughes
        To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his projected timetable for(a) changes to the structure of London Transport and (b) funding increases for London Transport. [35486]

        Ms Glenda Jackson
        The Secretary of State announced the Government's plans for a London Underground public-private partnership on 20 March 1998,Official Report, columns 1539–42, and for the Greater London Authority on 25 March 1998, Official Report, column 501. Over the next two years, London Transport will be restructured to prepare for its future role. London Underground will remain a single entity in the public sector and will award one, two or three contracts for the maintenance and modernisation of its infrastructure. During this period, London Transport will receive additional funding of £365 million for increased investment and preparing the public private partnership.

        Mr. Gibb
        To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how he plans to attract adequate private capital to London Underground. [35490]

        Ms Glenda Jackson
        The Secretary of State announced the Government's plans for a public-private partnership for London Underground on 20 March 1998,Official Report, columns 1539–42. Under these plans, operation will remain in a single, public-sector London Underground. London Underground will award one, two or three contracts for the maintenance and modernisation of its infrastructure, under which the private sector will source the capital needed to achieve a modern Underground for London.

        Vehicle Emissions
        Helen Jackson
        To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what percentage of vehicle emissions were accounted for by public transport in the latest period for which figures are available. [35488]

        Ms Glenda Jackson
        Provisional figures from the National Environmental Technology Centre suggest that in 1996, emissions from buses and coaches accounted for 9.5 per cent. of the total emissions of PM10 from road transport in the United Kingdom, 6.5 per cent. of the emissions of nitrogen oxides, 1.7 per cent. of the emissions of non-methane volatile organic compounds, 1.8 per cent. of the emissions of carbon monoxide and 4.6 per cent. of the emissions of carbon dioxide.

        Drug-driving
        Mr. Flynn
        To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what percentage of medicinal drugs that seriously impair drivers' abilities 496
        were detectable in his Department's recent drug-driving test. [35489]

        Dr. Strang
        The Department's recent study was capable of detecting at least 75 per cent. of such drugs.

        Road Capacity
        Mr. Kidney
        To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what research he has commissioned into the effects on traffic volumes of reducing road capacity. [35491]

        Dr. Strang
        The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, jointly with London Transport, considered the effect on road traffic volumes of roads which happened to be closed or have their capacity restricted. The study examined:

        1) how traffic models of such capacity restrictions ought to be developed and

        2) 60 or so cases where closures and restrictions happened—sometimes unexpectedly.

        The results of both aspects of that study were published on 11 March in separate reports and a summary report entitled "Traffic Impact of Highway Capacity Reductions" is also available. A copy of the summary report has been placed in the Library of the House.

        Workington Bypass
        Mr. Campbell-Savours
        To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he intends to announce his proposals for a bypass at Workington. [35492]

        Dr. Strang
        We have no plans for such a by-pass.

        Passenger Transport Authorities
        Mr. Grogan
        To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to extend the principle of passenger transport authorities into the rural areas. [35493]

        Dr. Strang
        The institutions required for delivering an integrated transport policy are being considered carefully and we shall be setting out our policies on this, and our proposals for transport in rural areas, in the forthcoming White Paper.

        River Transport (Thames)
        Mr. Robathan
        To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has for improving river transport on the Thames; and if he will make a statement. [35494]

        Ms Glenda Jackson
        In July last year, the Deputy Prime Minister launched his Thames 2000 initiative to use the Millennium celebrations at Greenwich as the catalyst to revitalise passenger services on the Thames. Since then there have been three key developments.London Transport has formed a new subsidiary—London River Services Ltd.—to own and manage key piers on the Thames and license passenger services. This will further the integration of river transport into London's transport system.
        On 16 March, the Deputy Prime Minister announced the outcome of a tendering exercise to provide river services to the Millennium Experience, and continuing legacy services

        497
        thereafter linking a large number of Central London piers. Operators of new services have committed up to £6 million investment in new vessels.
        At the same time, he announced the award by the Millennium Commission of a grant of £6.8 million to help fund the building of new piers and the refurbishment of others. In total £15 million will be spent on building new piers at Waterloo and Blackfriars and refurbishing piers at Westminster and Tower.

        In total, these developments represent new investment of some £21 million in transport on the Thames.

        A3, Hindhead
        Mr. Mates
        To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many(a) accidents and (b) fatalities occurred on the Hindhead stretch of the A3 last year. [36578]

        Ms Glenda Jackson
        1997 injury road accident data will not be available until the end of May 1998. The 1996 data are shown in the following table.

        Number of accidents/casualties on the Hindhead stretch of the A3: 1996

        Number

        Severity

        Accident

        Casualties

        Fatal

        0

        0

        Serious

        5

        5

        Slight

        16

        28

        All

        21

        33

        MV Derbyshire
        Sir Raymond Powell
        To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will place in the Library a copy of the video relating to the second survey on the wreck of the MV Derbyshire. [36832]

        Ms Glenda Jackson
        I am arranging for copies of the video to be placed in the Library of the House. The Assessors' Report was published on 12 March and copies are available in the Library of the House.

        Transport (Wales)
        Sir Raymond Powell
        To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much of the £500 million in the Budget for extra investment in transport will be allocated to Wales. [36750]

        Ms Glenda Jackson
        The £500 million transport package is over two years and includes a £50 million boost each year for rural bus services and community based transport initiatives. The extra provision for rural and community based travel has been split by the usual Barnett formula, giving £2.5 million for Wales in 1998–99. The split for 1999–2000 has yet to be decided.

        Members (Meetings)
        Mr. Vaz
        To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what his Department's guidelines are in respect of time scales for responding to requests for meetings from hon. Members. [36753]
        498
        Ms Glenda Jackson
        Ministers receive a large number of requests for meetings from Members and many others. Such requests are considered as quickly as practicable, taking into account the need to consult other departments and agencies and the pressures on ministers' diaries.

        Trunk Road Provision
        Mr. Hammond
        To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the relative importance accorded to the needs of motorists in reaching decisions about future motorway and trunk road provision has changed since 1 May 1997. [37219]

        Ms Glenda Jackson
        Our forthcoming Integrated Transport White Paper and the results of the Roads Review will set out clearly our overall approach and policies for the motorway and trunk road network, in support of our objective of achieving more sustainable transport patterns.

        Housing Associations
        Mr. Webb
        To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what powers he has to influence the level at which housing associations set their rents; and if he will make a statement. [37173]

        Mr. Raynsford
        Under Section 36 (3) of the Housing Act 1996, draft guidance prepared by the Housing Corporation on the management of housing accommodation by registered social landlords has to be approved by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions before being issued by the Corporation. Under Section 36(2) of the Act, the guidance may include the principles upon which rents should be determined.

        Following consultation, my right hon. Friend approved management guidance issued by the Housing Corporation in December 1997, which included guidance on rents and service charges. This advises registered social landlords that they should endeavour to charge rents that are below equivalent market rent levels, are affordable to those in low paid employment and that do not increase each year by more than the guideline limit of the increase in the Retail Price Index plus 1%.

        Housing Renovation
        Mr. Mullin
        To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to encourage local authorities to support the renovation of buildings for housing in inner cities; and if he will make a statement. [35445]

        Mr. Raynsford
        Our Capital Receipts Initiative has already provided local authorities with an additional £174 million for capital spending on housing and housing related regeneration in 1997–98, and will provide an extra £569 million in 1998–99. Local authorities can choose how best to apply the resources to meet local priorities.

        South Yorkshire Super Tram
        Mr. Allan
        To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the sums required to be raised by the four
        499
        South Yorkshire authorities in the year 1998–99 as a result of the debts accumulated by South Yorkshire Super Tram. [35449]

        Mr. Raynsford
        The increase in South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Authority's levy in 1998–99 to the four South Yorkshire districts as a result of Supertram debt was £7 million.

        Channel Tunnel
        Mr. McNulty
        To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects the Channel Tunnel Safety Authority to publish its annual report for 1996–97. [37296]

        Ms Glenda Jackson
        The Channel Tunnel Safety Authority has today published its ninth Annual Report covering the period from 1 April 1996 to 31 March 1997. I have arranged for copies to be placed in the Library.

        Waste Disposal
        Mr. Etherington
        To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to change the way in which statutory joint waste disposal authorities are funded currently. [37356]

        Angela Eagle
        I am concerned about current funding arrangements for statutory Joint Waste Disposal Authorities (JWDAs). At the moment, the constituent authorities share the costs according to their shares of the Council Tax base. This system does not reflect the service each authority draws from the JWDA and provides little encouragement for waste minimisation or other sustainable methods of waste management. The JWDAs have also expressed similar concerns to me.

        Under a tonnage-based system, authorities' contributions would be apportioned on the basis of the amount of waste they had delivered for disposal in a preceding period. The more successful they are in minimising waste and diverting it to other forms of sustainable waste management such as recycling and composting, the less they would deliver for disposal and the less they would pay. This will form one more element in our policy to encourage waste management options higher up the waste hierarchy.

        I have therefore requested officials in my department to work out methods for a tonnage-based system and to discuss them with the local authority associations.

        Departmental Cash Limits
        Mr. Eric Clarke
        To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has to change his Department's cash limits for 1997–98. [37357]

        Mr. Prescott
        My Department's non-voted and voted cash limits will change as follows.

        (i) the DETR/NT (New Towns) non-voted cash limit will be reduced by £2,278,000 from minus £110,000,000 to minus £112,278,000. This reduction reflects a technical transfer to the DETR/OES (Other Environmental Services) non-voted cash limit which will consequently be increased by £2,278,000 from £20,792,000 to £23,070,000 to provide for Supplementary Credit Approvals (SCAs) to local authorities to cover their capital contributions to the Commission for the New Towns under road cost sharing arrangements;

        500

        (ii) the cash limit for Class VI, Vote 4 (Local government and planning, England), covering Sections A to F of that vote, will be reduced by £1,250,000 from £30,987,634,000 to £30,986,384,000. This decrease is the result of reductions in the expenses of Valuation Tribunals in Section A (Valuation services); and reduced expenditure on publicity relating to planning programmes, on the EC Spatial Planning Initiative and on the planning and minerals research programme in Section D. This decrease will be used to offset an increase of the same amount from £157,000,000 to £158,250,000 on the DETR/LGR (Local government reorganisation) non-voted cash limit to meet the greater than forecast demand for Transitional Costs of Reorganisation Supplementary Credit Approvals (SCAs);

        (iii) the cash limit for Class VI, Vote 1 (Housing and construction, England) will be reduced by £2,500,000 from £542,186,000 to £539,686,000 reflecting a reduction in provision for current expenditure by the Rent Officer Service and on the Rough Sleepers' Initiative. Of this, £1,000,000 will be used to offset an increase in the non-voted cash limit DETR/HC from £719,907,000 to £720,907,000 to provide for capital expenditure on the Rough Sleepers' Initiative; and

        (iv) the cash limit for Class V, Vote 2 (Department of Transport: administration and transport services) will be reduced by £3,400,000 from £161,701,000 to £158,301,000 arising from reduced expenditure on aviation services and freight grants. The cash limit for Class V, Vote 7 (Passenger rail services) will be reduced by £4,600,000 from £1,444,293,000 to £1,439,693,000 reflecting reduced expenditure on consultants and a reduction in the payments to the train companies as a result of their worse than expected performance. These reductions, totalling £8,000,000, will be used to provide a Public Expenditure offset on Class V, Vote 3 (Transport Industries) to cover a shortfall in Trans European Network receipts.

      EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

        University for Industry
        Dr. Starkey
        To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement about his plans for the development of the University for Industry. [37263]

        Mr. Blunkett
        I have placed in the Library and the Vote Office copies of the University for Industry Pathfinder Prospectus which is published today.

        The University for Industry is at the heart of the Government's vision for lifelong learning as set out in our Green Paper, The Learning Age. It will lead the revolution in learning and achievement which this country needs.

        The Pathfinder Prospectus describes what the University for Industry will do, how it will operate and how it will develop for launch by the year 2000. It invites organisations in the public, private and voluntary sectors to consider how the University for Industry could support their learning strategies, and how they might contribute to its development and implementation.

        I have appointed today a Chairman, Lord Sainsbury, to take forward the further development of the University for Industry until permanent structures are in place. We have advertised today in the national press the permanent post of University for Industry Chief Executive.
        501

        Remploy
        Mr. Stephen Twigg
        To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what targets Remploy has been set in its 1998–99 Annual Performance Agreement. [37448]

        Mr. Alan Howarth
        I have, on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, written to the Chairman of Remploy approving the 1998–99 Annual Performance Agreement between the Department and the Company. This agreement covers the year from 1 April 1998. It has been negotiated by the Chief Executive of the Employment Service on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The targets are:the average number of disabled people employed by Remploy Ltd. will be at least 10,050;
        the average number of disabled people employed under the Interwork scheme will be at least 3,350;
        at least 250 disabled employees will move from Remploy factories to Interwork, having been employed there for at least 1 year, or from Interwork or factories to open employment;
        Remploy Ltd. will keep within a total unit cost target (operating deficit per disabled worker) of £9,700;
        the unit cost of Interwork should be no more than £4,300;
        Remploy limited will keep within an operating deficit of £99m (including reorganisation costs).

        I have today arranged for the text of the Annual Performance Agreement to be placed in the Library.

        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
        Pursuant to my reply of 27 March 1998,Official Report, column 324, further information is contained in a number of tables, copies of which have been placed in the Library.

    AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

      Departmental Employees
      Mr. Donohoe
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many staff are employed in Scotland by his Department, or executive agencies responsible to his Department; and where those staff are located. [36212]

      Mr. Morley
      Core-MAFF currently has 84 staff based at 14 different locations in Scotland. The locations are Ayr, Dumfries, Edinburgh, Elgin, Forfar, Galashiels, Hamilton, Inverness, Inverurie, Kirkwall, Oban, Perth, Stranraer and Thurso.
      502
      The Meat Hygiene Service and the Veterinary Laboratories Agency also employ staff in Scotland, and I have asked their Chief Executives to reply to my hon. Friend.

      The Farming and Rural Conservation Agency, The Centre for Environment, Fisheries & Aquaculture Science, Central Science Laboratory, Veterinary Medicines Directorate and the Pesticides Safety Directorate do not employ any staff in Scotland.

      Letter from Johnston McNeill to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 31 March 1998:
      As Chief Executive of the Meat Hygiene Service (MHS), your question to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and food enquiring about the number and location of staff employed in Scotland, has been passed to me for reply with regard to this Executive Agency.
      The MHS is responsible for enforcing meat hygiene, inspection and animal welfare at slaughter legislation in licensed fresh meat premises in Great Britain. The MHS employs a total of 250 staff in Scotland. The majority of these staff are Official Veterinary Surgeons and Meat Hygiene Inspectors who are based at licensed premises in Scotland. A small team of managerial and administrative staff manage operations from the MHS Scotland Regional Office, which is based in Edinburgh.

      Letter from T. W. A. Little to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 31 March 1998:
      The Minister has asked me to reply to your question on how many VLA staff are employed in Scotland.
      There are 25 staff employed at the VLA Lasswade Laboratory, near Edinburgh, Scotland.

      Bovine Tuberculosis
      Mr. Nigel Jones
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much his Department has spent on developing vaccines to prevent bovine tuberculosis since 1985; and how much investment is planned for each of the next five years. [36433]

      Mr. Rooker
      Work on the development of a vaccine to prevent bovine tuberculosis in badgers began in 1994. £1.5 million has been spent on this work to date. Research relating to the control of bovine tuberculosis is under review, following the publication of the Krebs Report.

      Mr. Nigel Jones
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many badgers were trapped under his Department' s tuberculosis control scheme in each year since 1985 by(a) snares and (b) cage traps; and if he will indicate the number of animals which suffered injuries in (a) and (b). [36432]

      Mr. Rooker
      The table indicates the number of badgers snared and trapped in Great Britain under the bovine tuberculosis scheme each year since 1985. There was a change of policy in 1986, following the recommendations of the Dunnet report. Snaring was not used in the years asterisked, and has not been used since February 1997.

      Year

      (a) badgers snared

      (b) badgers trapped

      1985

      24

      1,095

      1986

      12

      770

      1987

      *0

      711

      1988

      3

      775

      1989

      1

      726

      1990

      5

      806

      1991

      *0

      993

      1992

      *0

      1,054

      1993

      *0

      1,094

      503

      Year

      (a) badgers snared

      (b) badgers trapped

      1994

      *0

      1,683

      1995

      *0

      1,509

      1996

      1

      1,910

      1997

      1

      2,445

      One badger has died in a Ministry-set trap. Information on injuries sustained by trapped badgers is not regularly recorded. However, studies conducted by the Ministry's Wildlife Unit in 1990 and 1992 showed that about one quarter of badgers caught in Ministry-set traps had abrasions or other minor injuries.

      Fishing Quotas
      Mr. Townend
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if legal ownership rights are conferred in perpetuity where British shares of EU fishing quotas are transferred for cash payments. [36770]

      Mr. Morley
      The UK undertakes exchanges of quota on an annual basis with other Member States with the agreement of the European Commission. Such exchanges do not affect the underlying share of EU quotas which are fixed by Council Regulations.

      Green Transport
      Mr. Baker
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what specific changes to departmental transport arrangements have to date been implemented following the receipt of the green transport plan; [36645]

      (2) on what date he plans to introduce a green commuting plan. [36671]

      Mr. Morley
      [holding answer 27 March 1998]: The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions circulated to all Departments in September last year a 'Guide to Green Transport Plans'. The Department has started to look at preparing green transport plans for key headquarters buildings and has appointed a green transport co-ordinator.

      Cereal Feed
      Mr. Öpik
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what provision is made for separating organic and genetically modified cereal feed in imports; and if he will make a statement. [37102]

      Mr. Rooker
      Where imports of cereal feed contain a mixture of organic and genetically modified produce, separation is not possible. Equally, the rules of the World Trade Organisation constrain our ability to require segregation at source. However, a number of companies are seeking to import identity preserved cereals to overcome these difficulties. The Department has recently published a list of suppliers of non-genetically modified soya to help those who wish to purchase such material.

      Central Science Laboratory
      Mr. Charles Clarke
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assumption his Department is making in developing its financial 504
      projections of the proportion of Norwich scientific staff of the Central Science Laboratory who will relocate to York if the Norwich site is closed. [35955]

      Mr. Rooker
      [holding answer 24 March 1998]: Only staff in mobile grades would be expected to transfer in the event of a decision to relocate at York.

      Mr. Charles Clarke
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for what reasons Central Science Laboratory employees have an average 16 square metres of office and laboratory floor area at Colney Lane, Norwich, and 35 square metres at Sand Hutton, York. [35403]

      Mr. Rooker
      [holding answer 20 March 1998]: As I explained to my hon. Friend on 11 March 1998, Official Report, columns 255–56, the difference in area per employee is due largely to the laboratory at York being designed to accommodate approximately 400 fee-earning scientists and support staff, but presently only being occupied by 300 fee-earning scientists and support staff.

      In addition, the new laboratory at York was constructed in accordance with the latest health and safety requirements and scientists have therefore been provided with separate offices in which to write up the results of their work. Separate writing up space is not available at the Norwich laboratory as this was not a prevailing health and safety requirement at the time of construction.

      Mr. Charles Clarke
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the facilities at the Central Science Laboratory at Sand Hutton, York, for which his Department pays directly; and if he will specify the costs or projected costs in(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98 and 1998–99. [37113]

      Mr. Rooker
      The Central Science Laboratory (CSL) is required to recover its full costs through charges to customers, including those facilities specifically made available for use by the Department. The facilities in question are containment glasshouses, plant health quarantine facilities, constant temperature humidity rooms, controlled environment unit and storage facilities. Associated charges, representing the full cost of operating these facilities, are accounted for against projects at the year end and included in the audited CSL Annual Report and Accounts.

      Income received from the Department in respect of these facilities is as follows:

      1996–97 £0.4 million

      1997–98 £1.6 million

      1998–99 £5.0 million.

      The facilities were not available for the full 1996–97 year and the Department therefore paid proportionate costs only. Projected income for 1998–99 includes both running costs and the capital charge, which is payable from 1 April 1998.

      Mr. Charles Clarke
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the financial transfers between his Department and the Central Science Laboratory for each of the years since the Agency was founded and those projected for 1997–98 and 1998–99. [37112]
      505
      Mr. Rooker
      The Central Science Laboratory (CSL) was launched as an Executive Agency of MAFF in April 1992. Details of the financial transactions between the Department and the CSL since its launch and up until 31 March 1997 can be found within the CSL Annual Reports and Accounts, copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

      The CSL expects to receive £22.2 million income from the Department in 1997–98 and £28.1 million, including an element for the capital charge, in 1998–99.

      A complete list of financial transactions involved could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

      Mr. Charles Clarke
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what length of continued employment would be guaranteed to scientists employed by the Central Science Laboratory relocated from Norwich to York; and by whom this guarantee would be offered and funded. [37110]

      Mr. Rooker
      In relation to the previous relocation of permanent staff from MAFF headquarters units and the various Central Science Laboratory (CSL) sites to the York area, assurance of security of employment for a period has been provided in order to give staff the confidence to relocate with their families to York.

      In the event of the relocation of the CSL Norwich laboratory to the new CSL site at York, I would, of course, give consideration as to whether similar terms should be offered. Any such guarantee would be the responsibility of the Department.

      Mr. Charles Clarke
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the capital charge payable by the Central Science Laboratory on the laboratories at(a) Sand Hutton, York and (b) Colney Lane, Norwich, for the years (i) 1998–99, (ii) 1999–2000 and (iii) 2000–2001. [37127]

      (i) Monsanto

      Date

      Reason

      Outcome

      16 May 1997

      Meeting to discuss an application under EC Novel Foods Regulation

      Agreement to submit an application

      18 June 1997

      Meetings to discuss matters relation of pesticides

      Improved understanding of requirements

      9 July 1997

      19 August 1997

      11 September 1997

      Letter in response to consultation exercise on herbicide tolerant crops

      Comments noted

      23 September 1997

      Meetings to discuss matters relating to the regulation of

      Improved understanding of requirements

      8–9 October 1997

      pesticides.

      31 October 1997

      17–18 November 1997

      18–19 November 1997

      28 November 1997

      5 December 1997

      23 January 1998

      Meeting to discuss segregation and labelling of GMOs

      Exchange of views

      11 February 1998

      To discuss matters relating to the regulation of pesticides

      Improved understanding of requirements

      24 March 1998

      Courtesy visit from Senior Vice President responsible for GMO issues

      Exchange of views

      506
      Mr. Rooker
      I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to him on 25 March 1998,Official Report, column 186, in respect of the capital charge for the Sand Hutton, York laboratory. The capital charge for the Norwich laboratory is anticipated to be £780,000 for each of the three years 1998–99, 1999–2000 and 2001–2002.

      Capital charge valuations are subject to periodic review by an independent valuer.

      Mr. Charles Clarke
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of the scientists employed by the Central Science Laboratory at Tony, Aberdeen in January 1995 were still employed by the CSL, at York, in January 1998. [35959]

      Mr. Rooker
      [holding answer 24 March 1998]: The closure of the Torry laboratory resulted from the significant financial loss being incurred by the laboratory. On closure, funding for work of particular relevance to Scotland was transferred to the Scottish Office and work programmes and associated staff were transferred to the Rowett Research Institute, Aberdeen University and the Scottish Office Marine Laboratory. 10 staff, 7 of whom were scientists, transferred to the Central Science Laboratory at York and all were still employed there in January 1998.

      Genetically Modified Foods
      Mr. Baker
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the occasions since 1 May when he, his colleagues, or officials, have(a) met and (b) received representations from (i) Monsanto and (ii) Zeneca; what matters were discussed; and if he will make a statement on the outcome of each meeting. [36879]

      Mr. Rooker
      [holding answer 30 March 1998]: Neither I nor my colleagues have met either of these two companies since 1 May. However, officials met or received representations from them on the following occasions
      507

      (ii) Zeneca

      Date

      Reason

      Outcome

      1 May 1997

      Meetings to discuss matters relating to the regulation of

      Improved understanding of requirements

      12 May 1997

      pesticides

      13 May 1997

      2–6 June 1997

      4 June 1997

      Meeting to discuss a possible application under EC Novel Foods Regulation

      Notification of company's intention to submit application in due course

      16 June 1997

      Meetings to discuss matters relating to the regulation of

      Improved understanding of requirements

      18 June 1997

      pesticides

      30 June/1 July 1997

      2 July 1997

      9 July 1997

      14 July 1997

      18 July 1997

      13–14 August 1997

      13 August 1997

      Meeting to discuss an application under EC Novel Foods Regulation

      Agreement to submit an application

      9 September 1997

      Letter in response to consultation exercise on herbicide tolerant GMOs

      Comments noted

      23 September 1997

      Meetings to discuss matters relating to the regulation of

      Improved understanding of requirements

      6 October 1997

      pesticides

      8–9 October 1997

      14 October 1997

      19 October 1997

      25 October 1997

      27–28 October 1997

      31 October 1997

      17–18 November 1997

      19 November 1997

      27 November 1997

      16 December 1997

      26–27 January 1998

      30 January 1998

      13 February 1998

      26 February 1998

      4 March 1998

      In addition, 2 officials had a short placement with Zeneca in the Autumn of 1997.

      Vitamin B6
      Mr. Hancock
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the US Government's public health policy regarding the daily usage of vitamin B6. [36457]

      Mr. Rooker
      The basis of the US Government's estimate of the vitamin B6 requirement of healthy adults is 16 micrograms per gram of protein per day. This is virtually identical to the 15 micrograms per gram of protein per day that is the basis of the estimate for healthy adults in the UK. We are not aware of any US Government public health policy on the desirability of intakes above this level.

      There are no specific statutory limits in the US on the level of vitamin B6 in dietary supplements sold under food law. However, US legislation appears to allow less scope for the introduction of such limits on a precautionary basis. In this respect, it would seem to afford less protection to consumers than UK legislation.
      508

  HEALTH

    Residential Care Homes
    Helen Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on future levels of regulatory fees for residential care homes and nursing homes. [37354]

    Mr. Boateng
    The Department received 189 replies to the consultation document on increasing regulatory fees for residential care homes and nursing homes issued on 19 January. 106 respondents agree that fees should be increased, although many of these felt that the proposed increases were insufficient. Of the other respondents 80 felt the proposed increases were excessive and the remaining 3 did not express an opinion about the level of increases.

    Having considered the responses carefully, I have decided that fees should be increased as proposed in the consultation document with effect from 1 May 1998. I will be laying the necessary regulations before Parliament to bring these increases into effect.
    509

    Private Health Work
    Dr. Brand
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list(a) the number of private beds and (b) the proportion of private beds to all beds for each NHS trust each year since 1990. [37109]

    Mr. Milburn
    This information has never been collected from National Health Service trusts. It was last collected from district health authorities and special health authorities in 1990/91 when there were 2,956 authorised private beds. In the same year the average daily number of available beds in wards open night and day (ie 24 hours) was 255,479.

    National Health Service Centre for Coding and Classification
    Mr. Rhodri Morgan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 24 March 1998,Official Report, column 136, on what date his Department regularised the extra-statutory payments position as regards the NHS Centre for Coding and Classification; if the procedure required separate action with respect to Leicestershire Health Authority and the former Trent Regional Health Authority; and if he will place a copy of the documentation in the Library. [37230]

    Mr. Milburn
    The payments were formally regularised on 11 March 1998. Documentation consists of a note on the official file. No recovery action is required, but Leicestershire Health Authority may, after consultation with its appointed auditor, include an appropriate note in its next set of annual accounts.

    Correspondence
    Mr. Öpik
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what factors underlay the length of time taken to answer the letter of 20 January from the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire relating to the NHS provision of needles for insulin injection pen systems. [36342]

    Ms Jowell
    The Department aims to answer all correspondence within twenty working days of receipt but unfortunately, due to the volume of correspondence, delays can occur. I apologise for the delay in responding to the hon. Member' s letter.

    Public Bodies
    Mr. Burns
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish(a) the number of places on each of his Department's non-departmental public bodies, (b) the number of places that are currently unfilled on each non-departmental public body, (c) the total number of members that have resigned since 1 May 1997, (d) the total number that have retired since 1 May 1997, (e) the total number that have not had their contracts renewed since 1 May 1997, (f) the total number that have remained in place since 1 May 1997 and (g) the total number that have been appointed since 1 May 1997. [35285]

    Ms Jowell
    [holding answer 19 March 1998]: There are 744 places on the Department's non-departmental public bodies of which 36 are currently unfilled. 11 members have resigned since 1 May 1997; 23 members have retired; the appointments of 43 members have expired and not been renewed; 603 members have remained in place; and 73 have been appointed.
    510

    Green Transport
    Mr. Baker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what specific changes to departmental transport arrangements have to date been implemented following the receipt of the Green Transport Plan; [36653]

    (2) on what date he plans to introduce a green commuting plan. [36663]

    Ms Jowell
    [holding answer 27 March 1998]: The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions circulated to all Departments in September last year a "Guide to Green Transport Plans". The Department has started work on preparing green transport plans for key headquarters buildings.

    Smoking
    Mrs. Ballard
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of his Department's budget for 1998–99 is dedicated to reduction in the number of smokers. [34352]

    Ms Jowell
    The Department's budget for centrally funded health promotion activity in 1998–99 is £39.9 million. £6.5 million (or 16.29 per cent.) of it will be spent on anti-smoking health education programmes.

    Hospitality
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list planned expenditure on hospitality for April and May, indicating the date, location and purpose of each event. [35124]

    Ms Jowell
    There are no large events planned for April and May. It is not, however, possible to provide a comprehensive estimate for total expenditure on Ministerial hospitality as the majority of events and meetings will not be finalised until nearer the time.

    Staff Travel Expenses
    Mr. Stunell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total real term value of(a) staff car mileage claims paid and (b) staff rail fares paid; and what was the total amount of staff car mileage for which reimbursement was made and the percentage change year on year, for each year since 1989–90. [36162]

    Ms Jowell
    The real term value of(a) staff car mileage claims and (b) staff rail travel from 1993–94 is in the table. Figures for earlier years are not available.

    Year

    Car mileage £

    Per cent, change

    Rail travel £

    Per cent, change

    1997–98

    (to 20 March)

    809,314

    +1.8

    2,150,077

    +8.5

    1996–97

    794,835

    (Note 2)

    1,980,281

    (Note 2)

    1995–96

    58,594

    +80

    1,669,966

    +8

    1994–95

    32,494

    +44

    1,546,063

    -15.5

    1993–94

    22,474

    —

    1,829,772

    —

    Notes:

    1. Figures deflated using gross domestic product deflator.

    2. 8 regional health authorities were absorbed into the Department on 1 April 1996.
    511
    Mr. Stunell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total number of staff of all grades employed by his Department; and what percentage of these staff were eligible to claim a car mileage allowance on 31 March in each year since 1990. [36160]

    Ms Jowell
    The total number of staff employed by the Department in each year since 1990 is as in the table.

    Year

    Numbers of staff

    April 1990

    5,388

    April 1991

    4,651

    April 1992

    4,803

    April 1993

    4,846

    April 1994

    4,672

    April 1995

    4,493

    April 1996

    4,784

    April 1997

    4,696

    January 1998

    4,546

    All staff are entitled to use their car for official business and are potentially eligible to claim car mileage allowance, provided they comply with the codes and instructions set out in Departmental procedures. The Department maintains records of all claims for each individual but does not collect information on the percentage of total staff who make claims for car mileage and the information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

    Care Assessments
    Mr. Fitzpatrick
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many care assessments were made during 1996–97 by local authority social services departments. [36352]

    Mr. Boateng
    Information is not currently collected by the Department on the number of care assessments carried out by local authority social service departments. However, a project is currently in progress to develop statistics on assessments and the resulting packages of care. A report on the outcome of the pilot will be available later this year.

    Kidney Replacement Therapy
    Dr. Gibson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to increase the resources available for kidney replacement therapy. [36222]

    Mr. Boateng
    It is for health authorities, in consultation with specialist clinicians, to decide on local priorities for resources. Guidance was issued to health authorities about commissioning renal services in May 1996, and this will be followed up shortly with further advice about standards of treatment and the clinical effectiveness of dialysis therapy.

    We are also considering publicity initiatives aimed at increasing the number of transplants.
    512

    Maternity Services
    Mr. Ivan Henderson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his policy on(a) the availability of post natal care and laying-in facilities and (b) the availability and provision of maternity units within community based hospitals. [36487]

    Mr. Boateng
    The post natal care provided in maternity units is determined on the basis of clinical need and the needs of the mother.

    The pattern of local service provision is the responsibility of the health authority taking into account the needs of the local population, evidence of effectiveness and available resources.

    Private Health Care
    Mr. Nicholls
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what estimate he has made of(a) the cost of medical treatment paid for privately through medical insurance and (b) the impact of this on NHS costs per annum; [36729]

    (2) what estimate he has made of the extent to which the use of private medical insurance impacts on costs to the NHS; and if he will make a statement. [36475]

    Mr. Milburn
    The Association of British Insurers estimates the cost of claims on private medical insurance policies in the United Kingdom at £1.4 billion in 1996. We have made no estimate of the impact of the use of private medical insurance on National Health Service costs.

    Mr. Nicholls
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what financial contribution the private sector makes to healthcare in the NHS; and if he will make a statement. [36464]

    Mr. Milburn
    The information requested is not collected centrally.

    Acute Care
    Mr. Nicholls
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much is planned to be spent on acute care in the NHS in the current financial year. [36468]

    Mr. Milburn
    Health authorities submitted planned National Health Service figures for 1997/98 to the NHS Executive Headquarters in May 1997. These returns showed that, in England, £12,424 million was planned for general and acute care in 1997/98.

    Tuberculosis
    Mr. Charles Kennedy
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research he has commissioned into possible transmission of TB from badgers to humans; and if he will make a statement. [36721]

    Ms Jowell
    The Department has not commissioned work into possible transmission of tuberculosis (TB) from badgers to humans.

    Around 30 to 40 cases of human TB each year are due to M.bovis infection, the strain which infects badgers and cattle. These are mainly in older people who were exposed

    513
    to bovine TB before sterilisation of milk and routine testing of herds for TB were introduced and are not thought to be due to recent transmission.

    However, the Department and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are in discussion over the possible use of new molecular techniques for typing strains of TB to further investigate the epidemiology of M. bovis infection.

    Head Lice
    Mr. Norman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what statistics his Department has collated on the incidence of head lice amongst school children in the last five years. [36971]
    514
    Ms Jowell
    The information requested is not collected centrally.

    Mr. Norman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the effects on children's health of trends in the incidence of head lice in the last five years. [36972]

    Ms Jowell
    The Department's policy research programme and the central National Health Service research and development programmes are not currently supporting any research into this subject, due to the pressure of other priorities. The Medical Research Council, which is funded by the Office of Science and Technology, commissions most of the Government's research into bio-medical and clinical issues. The council is always open to new sound scientific proposals in competition with other applications.

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

Lord Butler of Brockwell
Sir Frederick Edward Robin Butler, GCB, CVO, having been created Baron Butler of Brockwell, of Herne Hill in the London Borough of Lambeth, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Hunt of Tanworth and the Lord Armstrong of Ilminster.

Fish Catch: Discards Policy
2.46 p.m.
Lord Gisboroughasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will recommend to the European Union that action be taken to reduce the tonnage of sea fish that is wastefully discarded.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, the Government strongly support new measures being introduced to reduce wasteful discarding of fish.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Will he study the way in which Norway manages this aspect of its fishing industry, where there are no discards and where large areas of sea containing juvenile fish are closed down from time to time; and Iceland, where they are managing actually to increase their total allowable catch? Does he agree with the Icelandic statement that jurisdiction of territorial waters is the cornerstone of fishing management?
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, it is true that Norway operates a ban on discarding in some of her waters. But in those waters the fish are relatively separated by species and age group and they are nearly all of the same type. I agree with the noble Lord that that allows cleaner catches to be taken and under those conditions a discard ban becomes practical. That is quite different from the position in our own waters. We have very mixed fisheries around our shores. Because of that a discard ban is not a practical proposition. The noble Lord referred to Iceland. Iceland is an individual state. We are part of the common fisheries policy. We believe that a policy is required. We need to co-operate with other member states because of the overcapacity of fishing fleets and the fact that fish do not respect national boundaries. We also agree that the present policy does not conserve stocks sufficiently and we are pursuing a number of desirable changes in the arrangements for the CFP.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is my noble friend aware—
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the original common fisheries policy
146
was conceived in deceit, that Parliament was not informed even of its existence let alone of the particulars, and that the only realistic action that we can now take, in view of the fact that all proposals to the Council have to come from the Commission, is for this country, after making due compensation to those who may have lost money in the whole wretched set-up, unilaterally to restore the 200-mile limit and, if necessary, to back its enforcement by the use of the British fleet?
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I am sure that if my noble friend were in charge things would be quite different! We were not the government to which the noble Lord referred. He was going back to the early 1970s. We cannot turn back the clock to the situation as it then was. As I say, we need to co-operate with other member states and we need a common fisheries policy.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, can the Minister say whether adequate reform of the common fisheries policy, to which he has referred, can be achieved only by unanimity or by a qualified majority vote in the Council? If the latter, can the noble Lord give the House any idea how those votes stack up at the moment?
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord the information he requires on how the votes stack up at the moment. We have several proposals for improving the CFP. We want to integrate environmental considerations more fully and improve the effectiveness of enforcement measures. We also want to introduce a greater regional dimension and strengthen the economic benefit that countries derive from the quotas. Furthermore, we wish to improve the way in which quotas are managed and to apply effective control. I am sure that the noble Lord will agree that if we can achieve all that, it will be a far better policy.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, my noble friend said that fish do not respect national boundaries. Is he aware that the fish caught in British waters do in fact like it here? They are not Little Englanders, but they like it here because the waters are conducive to their growth and breeding, largely because of the incidence of the Gulf Stream. So in fact the best fishing waters are around our coasts. Therefore, does the Minister agree that it would be best for the British Government to manage the fish stocks, as was suggested by my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington, who is right about most things? Will the Government consider this matter very seriously and put an end to the absurd common fisheries policy?
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, there are many things that we all like, but circumstances change. We are a long way from the situation in 1972 to which my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington referred. Whether or not fish like it around our shores, from time to time they swim away from them. We have to co-operate with other member states. We need a common fisheries policy.

147
I am sure that my noble friend will agree that if we can improve that policy in the way I have described, it will be nearer the one that he would prefer.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I welcome the Minister to the simple world of fish politics. Perhaps I may advise him that the answer to my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch is that the vote has to be unanimous. Equally, I advise him that his answer to his noble friend Lord Stoddart should have been that the Gulf Stream does not, as I understand it, affect the North Sea. Beyond that, and being slightly less helpful, does the Minister agree that it would be sensible for us to pursue a policy inside the common fisheries policy against discarding small, undersized fish which are dead and which do not contribute any further to stocks; and, even worse, against discarding above minimum landing-sized fish which are above quota and which are equally dead? Would it not be far wiser to persuade our colleagues who participate in the common fisheries policy that we should follow a "no discards" policy and that all fish should be counted in a common currency of cod equivalents?
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his assistance with regard to my noble friend and his noble friend. However, I must give a constructive answer as to what has happened. As regards the noble Lord's question about banning discarding, that would require fishermen to land all the fish they catch. They then could not be penalised for landing under-sized fish or fish for which the quota was exhausted. The incentives to conserve through the use of larger mesh sizes would be removed. The noble Lord may disagree, but quotas would be effectively unenforceable and stocks of the more valuable species would rapidly become depleted.

Privatised Utilities: Assessment
2.53 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, in the unavoidable absence of my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick and at his request, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many public utilities privatised between 1979 and 1997 have been subjected to examination by the Audit Commission and the National Audit Office and with what result.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the National Audit Office has examined and reported on all the sales of public utilities between 1979 and 1997. The Northern Ireland Audit Office reported on the sale of the electricity industry in Northern Ireland. The National Audit Office has also carried out a number of examinations of the work of the regulators. This
148
Government levied a windfall tax on privatised utilities immediately on coming into office as they believed that they were sold too cheaply by the previous government.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reassuring Answer. Is not the problem that while my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the windfall tax would be once and for all, the propensity of the privatised utilities to abuse their market position and consumers goes on unabated? What are the Government going to do about that?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My noble friend may have seen that last week the President of the Board of Trade published a Green Paper on the regulation of the utilities in which for the first time it is proposed to place a primary statutory duty on the regulators that the consumer interest will be put at the heart of the regulatory system. I believe that that very fundamental change will go a considerable way to answering my noble friend's question.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that the consumer has done well out of privatisation? Telephone bills have come down by 35 per cent; gas bills by 25 per cent. and electricity bills by 13 per cent. Admittedly, the cost of water has risen but, as we all know, that is explained by the huge environmental costs and the need.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not know how the noble Baroness can distinguish in that way between consumers and taxpayers. It is evident that the latter have done extremely badly out of privatisation, as is clear from the excess profits, some of which have been squeezed out by the windfall tax. Of course, there are continuing changes and improvements in the performance of all industries whether privatised or in the public sector.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, is it not the case that before privatisation most nationalised industries were costing the taxpayers whereas now they actually contribute to the Exchequer? Furthermore, are not all taxpayers consumers? Also, as my noble friend Lady Seccombe said, is it not the case that all consumers gained hugely? Perhaps I may instance another example. Does the noble Lord recall trying to find a working telephone box in the days of nationalisation? Does he not acknowledge that now it is quite difficult to find one that does not work, thanks to privatisation?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord answers his noble friend just as I did; namely, that consumers are also taxpayers. That is exactly the point. I do not accept that one can make the distinction that the noble Baroness made. As I said in answer to her question, huge technological changes are taking place in all these industries, notably in telecommunications. These changes take place whether or not the industry is privatised, as evidenced by the experience of France Telecom and Deutsche Telecom.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, over-simplified the position relating to the nationalised

149
industries. In fact, a number were making a profit; namely, British Airways, as well as the telecommunications and electricity industries. If the noble Lord checks the record, he will see that all of these were profitable. Is it not a fact that those industries were subject to regular annual reviews at that time and that action was taken on them? Is it the Government's intention that their successors, the privatised utilities, shall also be subject to such reviews, the results of which will be published and acted upon?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, under the privatisation regime established by the previous government, the privatised utilities are not subject to any particular review, but the regulators are. That is why our Green Paper, published last week, proposes to extend the role and powers of the regulators to protect consumers. I hope that the noble Lord and his party will respond positively to the invitation to consultation issued with the Green Paper.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, can the noble Lord inform the House how many of the privatisations of the former utilities were opposed by the present Government when they were in opposition, and with what result?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the result is obvious. When we were in opposition, we were in a minority and the privatisations went through against our reasoned and constructive opposition.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that it would be far better to have more competition than more regulation? Is not that exactly what is happening in both the electricity and the gas industries right now?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I simply do not accept that the two are in conflict. There are opportunities for competition under regulatory regimes just as there would be such opportunities without regulatory regimes. Indeed, that is the whole thrust of this Government's policy, as is evident from the Competition Bill which has just gone through your Lordships' House.

Inland Revenue: Self-assessment
3.1 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvelasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they believe that the Inland Revenue has adequate resources to administer an income tax system based on self-assessment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords, the implementation of self-assessment has been carefully
150
planned to ensure that adequate numbers of trained people, supported by a good quality computer system, are in place.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for that Answer. Has he had an opportunity to read an article in the Evening Standard for Monday 16th March, under the headline:
"Tax dream scheme is 'red-tape nightmare'",
in which it is stated:
"Tax experts are warning that the new system of self-assessment is turning into a bureaucratic nightmare … now the Revenue has issued 670,000 fines. Tax experts believe more than 100,000 may be incorrect"?
If, as my noble friend says, the Inland Revenue is adequately resourced, are we then talking about a question of competence?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am interested that my noble friend refers to a press cutting on the subject. I have had a search made of press cuttings; I asked officials whether there was a slew of horror stories about the introduction of self-assessment. The search came up nearly blank, although it did include the reference that my noble friend has given from the Evening Standard—in other words, there are very few horror stories. There are very few examples such as that quoted. My noble friend is right in that 670,000 penalty notices—not fines—were sent out at the end of January. However, he may be relieved to discover that, by 22nd March, only 75,000 appeals had been made.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, can the noble Lord say why free software is issued to professional accountants and tax advisers but not to private individuals? Would it not help enormously if tax inspectors made the same software available to private taxpayers as they do to professionals?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is an interesting suggestion which, frankly, I had not thought of. I shall think about it and write to the noble Lord.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that some innocent taxpayers—I am not declaring an interest, I hasten to add!—may well have been paying more tax than they should under the new system of self-assessment? In those circumstances, is the Inland Revenue recommending that innocent taxpayers use accountants to help them—perhaps I should declare a past interest now—in which case, does the Inland Revenue have a list of recommended accountants and, if so, when somebody chooses one, does the Inland Revenue get commission?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the answers to my noble friend's last questions are, of course, no and no. In his earlier questions my noble friend seemed to suggest that the introduction of self-assessment will lead to an increasing number of overpayments. I rather doubt that. I am not sure that it can be correlated with the use of professional advisers. As I told the House on

151
the previous occasion when this matter arose, my own self-assessment, which I did myself, was a penny out, while my wife, who has an adviser, overpaid by !800.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, would it not have been wise to allow self-assessment to settle down before the Chancellor, in his Budget, made significant changes to the tax system, bringing inside the tax system some of the payments that were once in the social security system?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I thought that the Opposition Front Bench in another place rather pooh-poohed the suggestion that there were significant changes to the tax system. They seemed to think that the changes were not as significant as the Chancellor claimed. Changes and improvements to the Inland Revenue system of tax collection have to be made in some years, and in any year there will always be changes to the tax system.
Lord Peston: My Lords, am I right in saying that the purpose of introducing self-assessment was to raise the efficiency of the system, either by getting more revenue in for the same effort, or by getting the same revenue in for less effort? Are the Government monitoring that process? If they are to monitor the process, as part of their investigation will they carry out a sample survey to calculate the cost to taxpayers of their efforts to administer the new system?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, speaking as a former survey researcher, I am sure that a sample survey would be welcome. We have always recognised that in the first year of the introduction of self-assessment there will be some additional burdens on taxpayers. On the other hand, in the longer term, as we shall be getting away from the confrontational process of claims, appeals and counter-appeals, the burden on taxpayers ought to be reduced.
Lord Newby: My Lords, how many self-assessment tax returns remain unpaid? What steps is the Inland Revenue contemplating to reduce the number of late payments in the current tax year?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as I said in response to an earlier question, 670,000 penalty notices were sent out at the end of January, the date by which all returns should have been received. The process of dealing with those penalty notices will not be completed until the end of March. Therefore, we do not have a final figure relating to the number of returns unpaid. The experience over the past nine months has been that the percentage of returns is greater than in previous years.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, what proportion of taxpayers are not required to submit a tax return on the basis that their income is so low or so stable that it is not necessary for them to do so? Is it not likely that the
152
people to whom the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, referred would be in the category of not having to complete a tax return?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend has asked two questions. One relates to the number of people who are excluded because their income is too low for them to pay tax. I am afraid that I do not have the figure available at the moment. On the question of those whose income is, as my noble friend put it, more "stable", the answer is that two-thirds of taxpayers do not have to submit tax returns. Tax returns are required from directors of companies, the self-employed and those such as pensioners or others with complex financial arrangements.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the staff do not share his view that staffing is adequate to cope with self-assessments? Is he also aware that, today, staff representatives are meeting at a special conference in London to complain about their inadequate numbers and the service that they give to taxpayers generally? Does my noble friend share my view that in the circumstances the Government's decision to reduce the number of staff by 1,500 next year should be reviewed before they proceed down that route?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend is not quite correct. It is not a decision to reduce the number of staff, but an estimate that fewer staff will be needed at that time. One of the objectives of the self-assessment programme is, quietly rightly, cost savings. We estimate that there will be savings of approximately !70 million in due course. As to consultation with the staff and the trade unions, my noble friend is right: we must continue to consult.

Unemployment Figures: Accuracy
3.11 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easingtonasked Her Majesty's Government:
What proposals they have to improve the accuracy of the unemployment figures.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, from April a single news release each month from the Office for National Statistics will present a coherent picture of the labour market. First, information from the Labour Force Survey, now to be released monthly, based on an average of the latest three months' data, will include unemployment estimates according to internationally agreed definitions set out by the International Labour Organisation. It will also include data on employment and other measures of economic activity. The Labour Force Survey is of course a sample survey and is subject to sampling variability and measurement and estimation issues. Secondly, ONS will continue to publish the claimant count series, which is a comprehensive count of claimants of unemployment-related benefits.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the new system that he has just

153
announced, which I understand will come into operation tomorrow, has been very widely welcomed? In particular, can my noble friend confirm that the new system will place greater emphasis on the International Labour Organisation's measure of unemployment which is fundamentally more important than the claimant count? Does my noble friend agree that it is difficult to obtain figures for those who are said to be economically inactive? Is this aspect being looked at?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend's comments about the internationally accepted figures. It is important that we have a proper basis for making comparisons with other figures. But I believe the implication of his further question is also valuable. With the publication of the Labour Force Survey figures, we shall increase our emphasis on employment and not just unemployment. It is important to recognise the approximately 2 million people who want to work but who are not looking for or are unable to take up jobs. That is the thrust of our policies under the New Deal and welfare-to-work.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, has the Minister had an opportunity to look at the useful analysis of unemployment by constituency which came out about a week ago? If so, is he aware that that shows that there are now no fewer than 350 constituencies with unemployment at less than 5 per cent., 158 with full employment (in the Beveridge sense of 3 per cent.), and only 56 with unemployment in double digits? Is the noble Lord prepared to give credit where credit is due for the healthy state of the economy which these figures indicate?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord refers to claimant count unemployment. We must apply to what the noble Lord has said all of the precautions of claimant count unemployment which have already been expressed. We cannot produce from a sample survey ILO-defined employment figures for individual constituencies. It is true that claimant unemployment figures have been going down for a number of years, and credit must be due to anyone who has been responsible for that—if governments are ever entirely responsible for these matters.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, perhaps we could return to the Question asked by my noble friend Lord Dormand of Easington. My noble friend Lord McIntosh referred to the 2·2 million people who want to work but who are not actively seeking work. It is known, is it not, that the great majority are women, and in particular single parents? Will the Government use the Labour Force Survey to discover why these people say that they want to work but cannot work? Is it because there are no child-care facilities, because they cannot get decent jobs, or because they get the sack whenever they have to leave to look after their children? What are the reasons? Surely, the Labour Force Survey can be used to find out why those who want work cannot get work.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend asks some very proper questions. He is right to
154
say that the Government should investigate the matter. Whether that can be done in the context of the Labour Force Survey, which already contains 100 questions, I am not certain. The Government's recognition of the problems that my noble friend has identified is evidenced by the fact that under the New Deal and welfare-to-work they propose to spend !3·5 billion over the next four years on exactly that problem.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, when the Government move to the new internationally recognised system and away from the claimant count, will they consider the number of people at any time who are between jobs? If not, whatever may be the international system, it will not tell us what we need to know.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is not a new system; it has been in use for many years in many countries. The ILO definition of unemployment includes availability to start work in the next two weeks and whether the individual has been actively looking for work in the past four weeks or has found a job and is waiting to start. If the noble Baroness asks for figures relating to those who are between jobs, she rather assumes that the interviewer and interviewee will know whether or not the individual will find another job in the next few weeks. That is impossible.
I have not sat down. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, for having spoken a second or two longer and deprived him of the opportunity to rise to speak in all four of the Questions this afternoon.

Crime and Disorder Bill [H.L.]
3.17 p.m.
Read a third time.
Lord Acknermoved Amendment No. 1:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
STANDING ADVISORY COUNCIL ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND THE PENAL SYSTEM
(" .—(1) There shall be constituted a body to be known as the Standing Advisory Council on Criminal Justice and the Penal System ("the Advisory Council") for the purpose of—

(a) advising the Secretary of State on the adequacy and effectiveness of the criminal law and procedure of the criminal courts;

(b) advising the Secretary of State on such aspects of the penal system as he may from time to time refer to it; and

(c) at the request of the Sentencing Advisory Panel referred to in section 71 below, providing such advice and assistance as may enable the panel the better to discharge its functions.

(2) The Advisory Council shall consist of—

(a) a chairman appointed by the Secretary of State, after consultation with the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice, from among the members of the Advisory Council; and

(b) such other members, not exceeding eighteen in number, as the Secretary of State may appoint having regard to qualifications referred to in subsection (3).

155
(3) At least two-thirds of the members of the Advisory Council shall be persons who appear to the Secretary of State to possess knowledge or experience of any aspect of the criminal justice system or the penal system including, in particular, the prosecution of offenders and their care and treatment in prison and the community.
(4) The Members of the Advisory Council shall hold and vacate office in accordance with the terms of their respective appointments and shall, on ceasing to hold office, be eligible for re-appointment, hut any such member may at any time, by notice addressed to the Secretary of State, resign his office.
(5) The Secretary of State may, out of moneys provided by Parliament, pay the members of the Advisory Council such remuneration and such allowances as may be determined by the Secretary of State with the consent of the Treasury.
(6) The Secretary of State shall provide the Advisory Council with such officers and such accommodation as may be appropriate.
(7) The Advisory Council shall make annual reports to the Secretary of State with respect to its functions, and the Secretary of State shall lay any such report before each House of Parliament.
(8) The Advisory Council shall separately report to the Secretary of State on any matter referred to it, or sanctioned by the Secretary of State for advice; and the Secretary of State shall publish any such report.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, four weeks ago, on 3rd March, noble Lords debated for about an hour in Committee the merits of setting up a standing advisory council on criminal justice and the penal system. The function of the council was to address the important issues of criminal and penal policy dispassionately, authoritatively and constructively. In the words of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice, the purpose of the amendment,
"is to provide the Home Secretary and the Government with a reservoir of wise, informed, objective and non-partisan advice on the important and intractable problems which confront him".— [Official Report, 3/3/98; col. 1132.]
Those who spoke in favour of the amendment in addition to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice were: the former Lord Chief Justice, my noble and learned friend Lord Lane, and the former Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, my noble and learned friend Lord Lowry, who has recently retired as a Law Lord. Those who spoke in favour of the amendment included two former Home Secretaries, the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, and the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, and former Ministers of the Home Office, the noble Lords, Lord Carlisle and Lord Elton.
The amendment was further supported by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, the noble Lords, Lord Thomas and Lord Goodhart, and the noble Baroness, Lady David. The only Member of your Lordships' House who spoke against the amendment was the noble Lord, Lord Henley, who recognised the uncomfortable position that he was occupying by likening himself to a character in a Bateman cartoon which would have been entitled, "The man who spoke against the amendment".
The noble Lord was typically frank. He said that he was filled with alarm by the very idea that party politics should be taken out of the criminal system. He considered that the council which we propose would look like an attempt to imprison and impose constraints upon the Home Secretary when he comes to make policy. He appeared totally to overlook that what is proposed is a purely advisory council.
156
While the Home Secretary will no doubt consider the advice, he may or may not accept it. The distaste of the party of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for independent advice was strikingly demonstrated towards the end of the previous Parliament when the Government resisted an amendment to give a right of appeal against tariffs set in murder cases—the same right of appeal as exists in the case of discretionary life sentences.
The amendment, which in no way limited the Home Secretary's ultimate right to set the tariff, was carried in this House but reversed in the other place. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, accepted that the amendment raised a number of issues which were worthy of further consideration. On the very day that the amendment came up to be considered on Report, I was provided with a copy of a lengthy letter from the Home Secretary to the Lord Chief Justice, explaining why he resisted the amendment. In order the better to answer the points made by the Home Secretary, and anticipating, as indeed was the fact, that the amendment would be reached at some time after 10 p.m. I did not move the amendment.
I turn now to the Home Secretary's letter. In essence, he contends that there is a formidable array of bodies from which he can obtain all the advice that he needs. I propose to comment seriatim on "known bodies", but before I do so I should like to emphasise that however formidable those bodies are, the Home Secretary has not begun to tackle the ever-increasing overcrowding in prisons.
On 24th March of this year I had the advantage of listening to an address given by Joyce Quin, Minister of State at the Home Office, on the Government's plans for the Prison Service. That address was given to the Parliamentary All-Party Penal Affairs Group. The following day I listened to and, indeed, took part in the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, calling attention to the problems facing the Prison Service in England and Wales.
Both Joyce Quin and the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, who summed up on behalf of the Government in the debate to which I have just referred, recognised the very serious overcrowding which exists currently, with a prison population of just over 65,000. They accepted the projection by the Home Office statisticians in January that the figure could well rise to nearly 83,000 within seven years. A worst-case scenario put the figure at 92,600, which means 24 new prisons at a cost of !2 billion.
Sadly, I do not believe that the worst-case scenario is altogether unrealistic. The new mandatory life sentences and the new minimum sentences are bound to put up the prison population, and the obligation upon judges in future to explain that, generally speaking, only half the sentence imposed will be served in prison will fuel public criticism of the sentences, and will probably result in an overall increase.
Both Joyce Quin and the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, were emphatic that overcrowding in prison must be reduced; that the trend to over-use custody must be reversed; but neither suggested that that could be achieved; neither advanced any strategy for softening the current harsh climate of public opinion.

157
There was, what the lawyers may refer to in a different context, a settled hopeless expectation that the rise would continue. Over the past 12 months, the prison population has risen by over 6,000—an average of about 115 per week. At that rate of increase, a prison of the size of Dartmoor would be needed every five weeks to accommodate that rise without increasing overcrowding.
It must however be startlingly obvious that the public and the media need to be re-educated as to the value of imprisonment: what it costs; what it achieves, or fails to achieve; and what are the alternatives; what are their costs, their success and failure rates, and so forth. There must be a wider understanding of the limited contribution imprisonment can make to an effective law and order policy.
The public must be made aware of the very limited extent to which rehabilitation can be achieved where serious overcrowding is on the increase, and where budget cuts have reduced, if not eliminated in some establishments, the provision of constructive time, designed to enable the prisoner to leave the prison establishment better equipped to earn his living and behave in a responsible manner towards society.
There is of course a world elsewhere. We need extensive research into the penal systems of other European countries in order to discover why their prison populations are significantly lower than ours; how they have managed to persuade their public to accept punishment within the community. Here public opinion, to a very large extent, condemns community penalties and crime prevention programmes as being soft and woolly. That opinion needs to be effectively challenged and altered. Non-custodial sentences of the right kind are not a weak or soft option. New schemes are having considerable success with non-violent offenders.
I believe that the standing council, unlike the various bodies referred to by the Home Secretary to which I shall now turn, could provide the Home Secretary with vital material to reverse the trend, but that of course is just one area in which the standing council could produce an effective contribution.
I turn now to the formidable array of bodies referred to in the Home Secretary's letter to the Lord Chief Justice. First, a general comment: an important virtue of the proposed standing council is that it takes criminal policy out of the political arena; secondly, it centralises the source of advice in one body whose function it is to survey the whole scene rather than spreading it over a series of committees.
The first source of advice identified by the Home Secretary is the Criminal Justice Consultative Council. Its function, as I stated in the debate on 3rd March, is to reconcile the potentially conflicting aims of the disparate agencies of the criminal justice system. For instance, the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, the Probation Service and the Prison Service. Its terms of reference, set out in Annex A of the summary of its activities in 1996–97, is to promote better understanding, co-operation and co-ordination in the criminal justice system, in particular by considering reports about developments in and affecting criminal justice; considering other information about the operation of the
158
system; and overseeing the arrangements and special conferences. I should have thought that committee is hardly within the context of an advisory committee concerned with the whole penal and criminal justice system.
The next body is the Trial Issues Group. It is a Home Office body concerned essentially with trial procedures; for example, the potential limitations on the right of cross-examination by the accused acting in person of an alleged victim of rape. It deals with only a tiny segment of the criminal justice and penal system.
The next reference is to Her Majesty's Chief Inspectors of Prisons and Probation. They are concerned with policy issues within prison. Their function is not to advise on the criminal justice policy or the penal policy. The Home Secretary then referred to the Law Commission. Its concern is the substantive criminal law; bringing the law up to date and getting rid of anomalies. It is not concerned with criminal justice policy or with the penal system.
Next the National Audit Office. It is involved in the financial supervision and monitoring of activities, bodies or organisations to ensure efficiency, effectiveness and value for money. It does not focus on that with which we are concerned.
There is then a reference to the Youth Justice Task Force, but it is concerned with practical suggestions to improved the quality of justice relative to young offenders. The Youth Justice Board is referred to in Clause 35 of the Bill. It is primarily a monitoring body. Of course, the Sentencing Advisory Panel will be an important source of advice, particularly in relation to the Court of Appeal Criminal Division, but it will not research the wider policy issues that the standing advisory council is designed to do. It is unlikely to communicate with the public or the media, or to seek to remedy public misapprehensions such as that all judges are soft on crime. It will not be concerned with policy questions: for example, whether it was wise to get rid of the partially suspended sentence, or whether the reviewable sentence recommended some 25 years ago by the Butler Committee is a sentencing option which should be available in order to cater for an offender who, if given a determinate sentence, is likely to be discharged while still a danger.
In the course of the debate in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, said:
"The real question is: would an advisory council of the sort proposed give further value?".—[Official Report, 3/3/98; col. 1144.]
I submit that the answer is an emphatic yes. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Hurd of Westwell: My Lords, I commend the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. He returns to the point which we discussed in detail in Committee. I do not need to rehearse all the arguments because he has produced them again most succinctly.

159
I, too, have been privy to the Home Secretary's explanation of his reluctance to agree to the amendment. I am grateful to him for explaining in such detail the wide range of bodies which stand behind his shoulder or at his elbow. He ranged wide in his search for bodies which could conceivably be described as relevant to the matter, and he produced a long list. I am not in favour—I do not believe that many of your Lordships would be in favour—of multiplying such bodies without need. It may be good for every Secretary of State from time to time to examine the bodies which stand behind his shoulder or at his elbow to see whether any should be wound up and some made brisker and briefer.
However, the amendment raises a different issue: whether any of them do the job which the proposal is designed to meet. Two bodies appear at the outset prima facie to be relevant; but, on examination, I do not believe that they are. The Sentencing Advisory Panel does not advise the Home Secretary; it advises the Court of Appeal on sentencing guidelines. It operates entirely within the existing law, whatever that may be. It does nothing in respect of new sentences or maximum sentences, and nothing outside the existing body of statutes. Therefore, that body does not meet the case we have in mind.
The Criminal Justice Consultative Council was set up as a result of the Woolf Report, although it does not have a statutory base. It has a distinguished chairmanship and membership. Has it fulfilled the kind of purposes which we discussed in Committee? I have no criticism of the body, but perhaps the reason why it has not fulfilled all expectations relates to its membership. Perhaps that is a shade defensive and by nature inclined to be affectionate to the status quo, whereas those of us who support the amendment believe that in this respect the status quo is not working well.
Perhaps I may rehearse the amendment's two main purposes in lay language. The first is to provide Parliament and the public with a time for reflection on particular proposals, perhaps after some tragedy or some drama. The case for having that time for reflection appears to have been made in practice over and over again. The advisory council would not be a decisive or executive body nor would it have powers of decision. It would simply provide advice and a time for reflection so that Parliament—this place and the other place—could reach calmer and wiser decisions.
The second purpose is to prevent discussions on criminal justice matters degenerating into adversarial squabbles. I would not adopt the same phrases as my noble and learned friend. It is inevitable that these matters are political and it is right that they should receive more parliamentary discussion in both Houses, because they acutely and sensitively touch the lives of citizens. The question is not whether there should be parliamentary discussion, but whether it should take an adversarial form, as it has tended to do in the past few years, or whether it should be treated more like discussions on foreign and defence affairs when the convention in both Houses of Parliament is that different views are held across parties, the aim being to reach a
160
solid decision out of parliamentary discussion. I believe that the advisory council proposed in the amendment could help that discussion.
Those are the two main aims of the amendment. I do not believe that they are met by any of the bodies in the wide spectrum which at present advise the Home Secretary and therefore I continue to support the amendment.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I rise again to offer my strong support for the amendment. It would help the Home Secretary in his all-important task of re-educating the public in penal affairs. We are all aware that the Home Secretary is a high-minded man and a Christian democratic—even a Christian socialist—and is afflicted with an appalling dilemma which will haunt him for the period of his much valued stewardship. Is he going to do what is right, or what is popular? We have been told by a famous man, the late Lord Butler, that politics is the art of the possible; but a famous poet, Crosland—nothing to do, I believe, with our much-lamented Secretary of State—once said,
"I trod the road to hell:
There were things I might have sold
And did not sell".
Anyway, that was the gist of it. He trod the road to hell, but there were things he did not do.
There is a problem for the Home Secretary. He must know what is right—of course he knows what is right. He knows that the present policy, adopted by the previous government in their last fatal phase, is wrong. But of course, his duty is to maintain what is called the confidence of the public. We had a very impressive debate in this House. Apart from those who were instructed elsewhere, everyone agreed that the present policy is wrong—the policy adopted from our friends opposite. That was the situation following the debate here.
But what were we told by the noble Lord, Lord Baker? He told us that it would have been difficult to imagine such a debate in the House of Commons. He said that on such an occasion Labour MPs would have found it difficult to criticise their own Government, and Conservative MPs would not wish to appear soft on crime. Therefore, there is presently a conflict between the two Houses. It is not the traditional conflict of a lot of reactionary old landowners against enlightened young people in the other place. Rather, it is knowledge against ignorance. That is the present situation between the two Houses.
What shall we do about it? We have a Home Secretary to whom we wish everything good, since he is a good Christian Socialist and a high-minded man. What is he going to do during his few years in office? He does not want to go down in history as a man who made no effort at all to deal with the situation. Being a Christian, no doubt he will go back to St. Augustine, who told us that we must hate the sin and love the sinner. That is very difficult to carry out, particularly when we are all moved by the sufferings of the victims and their relatives.

161
What is he to do about it? He has that terrible problem. It is not made any easier by the Sun newspaper, which is read by millions of people every day, including myself, although not many other noble Lords. The Sun, writing about certain paedophiles, referred to them as "such hyenas", and said that they have no rights. That is what millions of people are being taught—that certain human beings have no rights and therefore we can "give them hell". That is the teaching.
What happens as a result? I visit a prisoner regularly. He told me that in a cell close to his he heard the sudden noise of a chair dropping to the floor. The prisoner, a sex offender, was committing suicide because he was to shortly leave prison and would have to face the hatred inspired by the Sun newspaper and other tabloids. That is the situation.
I do not say that there is an easy solution. Most of us, when faced with serious crime, are horrified, shocked and revolted. It is very difficult indeed to strike the perfect balance indicated by St. Augustine. However, we look to the Home Secretary, a high-minded man, to do his best. He recognises his responsibilities. This amendment will help him, and he will be assisted by a group of powerful advisers, who I hope will command great public confidence. They will help him to do his Christian duty.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, used three words to describe the approach of an advisory council. It would consider the issues that arise in relation to the criminal justice system, "dispassionately, authoritatively and constructively".
Perhaps I may take each of those words separately; first, the word "dispassionately". It must surely be obvious that the debate about the criminal justice system over the past five or six years has been marred by "adversarial squabbling", to adopt a phrase from the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, between the political parties at a time when all the parties are concerned about the rise in crime and what to do about it. One would have hoped for a constructive consensus that would receive the support of all parties which considered those issues seriously.
The next word is "authoritatively". The Home Secretary, in a letter to the Lord Chief Justice, referred to a number of agencies, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, set out those agencies. I shall refer to just two of them. The Criminal Justice Consultative Council sounds a very important body. It is chaired by the vice-president, Lord Justice Rose, who is a person of great distinction. I have no doubt that the council does extremely valuable work. However, if one reads its latest newsletter, published in February 1998, what comes across strongly is that it is a body which responds to issues that are brought to it. For example, the main heading in the newsletter refers to the publication by the Home Secretary of the first report on ethnic monitoring by the police. Indeed, a Home Office research study, Ethnic monitoring in police forces, was brought to the Criminal Justice Consultative Council for it to consider, which it undoubtedly did. It said what a good paper it was and the item in the newsletter ends in these terms:
162
"The Criminal Justice Consultative Council has received a presentation about the two ethnic monitoring reports. The Council and its Area Committees will be closely involved in future work on this issue, and in particular in work on the broader issue of ethnic monitoring across the criminal justice system as a whole".
That is all. There is nothing to be initiated by the council and no research is suggested. It is merely the recipient of Home Office reports, which it considers with some care.
At a national criminal justice conference, that same body was addressed by a number of people and there was discussion about the serious conflict of interest between confidentiality and the sharing of information. It was concerned with the definition of "dangerousness", a matter which arises from time to time in discussion on the criminal justice system.
The report ends in this way:
"The Home Office and the probation service are taking forward work arising from the conference",
not the council. It has met, and its members have had a chat and examined issues brought to them. They have given a view. But future work is to be done by the Home Office and the Probation Service. Therefore, it is a body which responds and does not initiate.
The Trials Issues Group, the second body referred to by the Home Secretary, also produced a newsletter in February 1998 concerned with the standard of witness care, prosecuting minor road traffic cases, joint performance management between the CPS and the police and a manual of guidance for the preparation, processing and submission of files which the police provide to the CPS. I am sure that that is extremely valuable work; however, it does not add anything at all to the consideration of criminal justice policy, which is the purpose behind the council as suggested by the noble and learned Lord.
Finally, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, used the word "constructively". It is a fact that an impossible situation is arising in the prisons which is bound to erupt in danger and violence. The Government do not really seem to appreciate that. As the noble and learned Lord said, it is not possible to have the equivalent of Dartmoor built every five weeks to house the projected increase in the prison population.
As the noble and learned Lord said—and I support this to the hilt—the public and the media have been led astray over the past four or five years. They have to be re-educated and they have to consider the cost as opposed to the result—in other words, how much they are paying and what are the re-offending rates. They must consider keeping people out of prison and encourage them to become constructive citizens for the future. "Constructively" is the word that I would endorse. We are indeed discussing a council which could pool together all the strands and take out of politics, and out of the adversarial squabbling, these very important issues which will give rise to trouble in the future. I support the amendment.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I rise briefly and with some trepidation to speak again on the amendment. I say, "trepidation", because when I spoke to the amendment on the last occasion, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, reminded the House, I was the only one

163
to speak against it—apart from the noble Lord, Lord Williams, if he did speak against it. That was certainly not quite clear from the speech that he made at the time, but I gather that the Government have since hardened their line and that they intend to oppose the amendment.
I suspect that I achieved relatively little when I spoke on the last occasion. Indeed, all that I seemed to achieve was to inspire the noble Baroness, Lady David, to come out in support of the amendment. I imagine that she is still in support of it and that she will be siding with the noble and learned Lord when he presses the amendment to a Division. However, that is obviously a matter for the noble Baroness, and for her alone.
The noble and learned Lord very kindly reviewed my arguments and I have no complaint about the manner in which he did so. I have to say that they have not changed and I shall not, therefore, repeat them today. However, the noble and learned Lord seemed to imply that I had overlooked the advisory nature of the standing council that he suggests. I have to tell the noble and learned Lord that I did not overlook the advisory nature of the council. I believe that that was something which I dealt with in response to my noble friend Lord Renton. I made it quite clear that, from my own experience, "advisory" could be interpreted in a number of different ways. Indeed, some Ministers could find themselves more bound by an advisory body than the noble and learned Lord seemed to imply. Certainly the constraints that he is hoping to impose on Ministers by taking these matters, as he puts it, out of party politics—that is, out of adversarial politics—would seem to suggest that he is hoping that such a committee could be a constraint on a Home Secretary and one who is, after all, responsible to Parliament.
As I said, I spoke against the amendment on that occasion and I do so again now. We shall of course listen most carefully to what the Government say in response. I must make it quite clear that I cannot offer my support to the noble and learned Lord in his amendment. However, I believe that it is a matter for the Government to make their case as to why they oppose it. Certainly we on these Benches—or, perhaps I should say, I myself—will not be supporting the amendment; nor will we be supporting the Government in the Division Lobby.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I welcome the amendment. The noble and learned Lord has performed a public service by highlighting what is required in the process of criminal justice. I say that because, in the matter of crime and punishment, the need for a co-ordinated approach has been well rehearsed; indeed, it is not something new. What has come out very clearly is the fact that there is a need to look at the criminal justice system from the process of arrest right through to the prison situation. The discrepancies within the system have been clearly demonstrated on a number of occasions. They have
164
been clearly highlighted by Louis Blom-Cooper and Seán McConville in a paper published by the Prison Reform Trust. If the Minister has not read the document, I recommend that he does so. It is not good enough to say that the Government receive ample and adequate advice. Indeed, despite all this "ample advice", why is it that we have a prison system which is bursting at the seams? What are the issues that we should be highlighting?
I suspect that one of the things that we are not very clear about quite often is the use of public opinion as a means of promoting legislation on criminal justice. Yet, study after study has demonstrated that the public are not as punitive as some people seem to imply. There is a tendency for a knee-jerk reaction to legislation. The classic example would be the dangerous dogs legislation which was introduced some years ago. We tend to forget the impact that such legislation has on society over a long period of time. If the Government say that they have adequate consultation or that they receive adequate advice, I should certainly like to know what sort of advice they received on parenting orders, which we are discussing in this Bill. I should also like to know what sort of advice they received as regards curfews. Indeed, what sort of advice did they receive on the age of criminal responsibility? In other words, were people adequately consulted on such matters? I suspect not.
Perhaps I may give the House an example which is supported by what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, said about the need for research. I believe that to be crucial and perhaps I may cite one or two examples in that respect. There is a disproportionate number of black people in British prisons. I have said that before and I repeat it. Indeed, 15 per cent. to 17 per cent. of our prison population is black, as against their representation of 5 per cent. in the community; 25 per cent. to 27 per cent. of women in prison are black—that is, one in four. There is no evidence to show that black people commit more crime than others, yet the criminal justice system has produced that discrepancy. Despite a number of representations that I made to the Home Office in my capacity at the Commission for Racial Equality on matters of criminal justice, the matter was not seriously considered— and would never have been addressed—until we commissioned a study with the Institute of Criminology at Oxford to look into the process of the sentencing of black people. In that study over 4,000 cases of people who had already been sentenced were examined in certain courts in the West Midlands. What came out most clearly was the discrepancy in sentencing and the greater propensity to send black people to prison.
I do not believe that it is important at this moment in time to look at the detail of that particular study, but, without such a body with that function of advising, and so on, such matters would not have been adequately considered by the Home Office at that particular time. What the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, is quite rightly proposing is not a body that will dictate: he is talking about such a body in terms of advising the Secretary of State on the

165
adequacy and effectiveness of criminal law; advising the Secretary of State on certain aspects of the penal system; and,
"providing such advice and assistance as may enable the panel the better to discharge its functions".
All we are talking about again and again are the advisory functions which the Government may or may not wish to take on board.
Perhaps I may just add that the extent to which research should form the basis of our criminal policy is most important. We would not have been aware of the situation until research and other evidence demonstrated clearly that across the country 25 per cent. of people who are stopped and searched are black youngsters. Some 40 per cent. of people who are stopped and searched in London are black people. Only one in 10 of those incidents results in some kind of criminal justice process. These are the discrepancies we have created within the criminal justice system. I do not denigrate the important function of the criminal justice council, but that body seems to be reactive. What we require is an independent body outside the political arena which is able to advise the Home Secretary on issues of paramount importance. I support the amendment.
4 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, as two Front-Bench speeches have been permitted from the Liberal Democrats, I hope the House will permit two Back-Bench speeches from the Conservative Party. Grateful as I am for the support of my noble friend on the Front Bench, I regret that, loyal as I may be, I think no one who has served in the Prison Service can be bound by loyalty to his own party not to support this amendment. I shall speak briefly because we have been over this ground before. I remind your Lordships that it was apparent that the increasing flow of prisoners into the Prison Service over the past few years was politically motivated. Once the political bandwagon was rolling there was no machinery by which any politician could resist it—with an approaching general election—without suffering political damage.
This amendment proposes a small piece of machinery to which a Home Secretary, and a shadow Home Secretary—let that be emphasised—could turn for advice which the public might respect, although it may be contrary to what the tabloid newspapers advocate. That is what has been lacking. That is why we have an unbalanced system at the moment because the fourth estate is more powerful than your Lordships and the other place together on issues such as this. If we can recruit an ally by means such as this I must support that proposal whatever my Front Bench advises.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I have not spoken previously upon this Bill. I rise to speak briefly in support of this amendment. I do so because during the years I worked for my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead at the Home Office I became aware of the grave limitations within the Home Office as it lacked precisely such a body. What I particularly like about this amendment is that it provides a relatively independent and dispassionate mechanism for giving authoritative
166
advice to the Home Secretary without binding him in any way, without diluting his power in any way, and involving the senior judiciary in the process.
It seems to me significant that the amendment has the support of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice and of the senior judiciary. Speaking for myself, I believe that this would enhance the intelligent development of penal policy and criminal justice policy. My noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, who is not in the Chamber at the moment, has indicated to me that, speaking as a former Home Secretary, he would have regarded a body of this kind as being quite invaluable during his stewardship. I therefore very much hope that this amendment will be carried and carried in another place too.
Lord Lane: My Lords, at the risk of repeating some of the matters which have been mentioned before, I add one or two brief words. For justice to be done in the realm of criminal penalties and trials one of the prime requirements is consistency. Over the past 10 years or more there have been wild fluctuations in political views as to how those matters should be conducted. Those fluctuations may well have been caused by too much regard being paid to that will-o'-the-wisp, public opinion. Public opinion is fostered, if not caused, by the tabloid press and that is a poor basis upon which to base matters as important as these. It seems to me, if I may say so, that the one great advantage of this amendment would be to prevent that sort of fluctuation happening in the future and to provide some consistency and some basis upon which courts can operate knowing that the whole system will not change overnight. This proposed amendment seems to me to be ideal. It certainly has no disadvantages that one can see.
Lord Lowry: My Lords, we are debating a very political subject. It is one which cannot be taken out of politics. I prefer to put it in the following terms. Let us have an advisory committee which in a sense comes into politics to redress the balance because, as noble Lords have pointed out, we have this thing known as public opinion which is largely moulded by the press. It may not even reflect what people really think about subjects on which perhaps they are not particularly well informed but on which they have, or are easily made to form, strong views.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, is legendary for his humanity. I thought that he advanced the clinching argument from a government point of view, no matter which government are in power. On this occasion he has been humane to the Home Secretary because he pointed out the enormous advantage it is to a man otherwise of the most humane and, may I say, sensible outlook when he is faced with the kind of situation which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, described so graphically to have this advisory committee. There are other committees. My noble and learned friend Lord Ackner and the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, have analysed the relative unsuitability of those committees to achieve the object which your Lordships are considering. Therefore I shall not go into further detail on that point.

167
The advisory committee which is proposed will give so much better support and provide so much better protection—if I may use that word—to a conscientious Home Secretary than any or all of the committees which we have heard mentioned. For that reason, as well as those which have been advanced already, I strongly support the amendment. With respect, I strongly commend it to the Government.
Lord Oliver of Aylmerton: My Lords, I came here this afternoon intending not to speak on this amendment. But having listened to the debate I cannot refrain from saying that anyone listening with an open mind cannot, I think, but be utterly convinced of the rightness of this amendment. We have all been educated by the press and the media into a belief that the only effective method of dealing with crime is prison. Perhaps we should bear in mind those chilling words of Oscar Wilde:
"I know not whether laws be right nor whether laws be wrong, all that we know who lie in gaol is that the wall is strong and that each day is like a year, a year whose days are long".
The statistics and the projections which have been adumbrated by my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner indicate that the Government of the country and all of us face not just a serious situation but a crisis. Surely to goodness there is only one question: aye or no—do we need, ought we not to have, an independent advisory body to look into this and to assist the Secretary of State in what is essentially a very difficult political decision? To that question there can be only one answer and for that reason I support the amendment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, it would be useful to focus on the terms of the amendment to see what is requested and what consequences might sensibly be anticipated. The amendment recommends the constitution of a standing advisory council with the following purposes:

"(a) advising the Secretary of State on the adequacy and effectiveness of the criminal law and procedure of the criminal courts;

(b) advising the Secretary of State on such aspects of the penal system as he may from time to time refer to it; and

(c) at the request of the Sentencing Advisory Panel referred to in section 71 [of the Bill] providing such advice and assistance as may enable the panel the better to discharge its functions".

Your Lordships will forgive my pointing out what the amendment seeks. With infinite respect, what is sought by the amendment is not likely to produce the remedies and the panaceas for which so many of your Lordships earnestly hope.
It is said that this will be a protection for the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State looks for and seeks no such protection. He looks for informed advice. I will deal later with the sources of advice he has at present. No committee of the sort referred to in your Lordships's speeches will produce an immediate reduction in our overcrowded prison system.
It is easy to say that the media are ill-informed; that the press get it wrong. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, made his stance quite plain. He wishes to
168
see criminal policy taken out of the political arena. The noble Lord, Lord Hurd, having once been an elected representative, did not go that far. Nor do the Government go that far. We believe that the press has a function in a free democracy. Simply because the views of some newspapers are different from some of our opinions or prejudices does not disentitle them having the opportunity of making their point.
If a party of whatever political complexion places itself before the electorate with the request "Please will you vote for use?", the electorate will rightly and inevitably say "What is your policy in those areas which deeply concern us?"—not because of the puff of the moment in a tabloid newspaper. I do not view our fellow citizens in that light.
One of the central issues that concerns the people of this country is whether or not they are enabled by the government of the day and the criminal and penal regimes of the day to have a reasonable, decent opportunity to live a calm life. That is one of the duties of the Secretary of State for Home Affairs. I repeat, he looks for no protection. He does not wish to shirk the responsibilities for which the Government were elected and the reason why the Prime Minister entrusted him with this difficult work.
It was said today that the question may be: do we do what is right or do we do what is popular? I reject that as a necessary option. Sometimes what is right is popular and sometimes what is right is deeply unpopular. It is said that the public need re-education. The public are entitled to information, they are entitled to avoid dictation from us.
I deliberately mentioned the purposes of the amendment because, having heard the detailed speeches of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and others, and having reflected upon the helpful tone of the intervention of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, we thought very carefully about whether we should change our views. We approached it with an open mind. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, has said, the Home Secretary had a full discussion with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice and wrote fully to him in the letter that has been quoted.
First, I deal with the adequacy and effectiveness of the criminal law. We have the Criminal Justice Consultative Council which has on it representatives from throughout the criminal justice system and we have local practitioner-level groups. We believe that that is a good, practical source of advice.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, will the Minister tell us what that council initiates? What research does it carry out?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it can deal with any issue it thinks relevant. I had intended to deal with the question of initiation later, but the noble Lord offers me the opportunity. Paragraph (b) in the amendment states that the council is to advise
"the Secretary of State on such aspects of the penal system as he [the Secretary of State] may from time to time refer to it".

169
I continue. We have the Trial Issues Group which deals with the effectiveness of the procedure of the criminal courts. That is part of the amendment. The reports from the Chief Inspectors of Prisons and Probation do not limit themselves solely and simply to a report of the facts they have seen. Even if they were to do so, their reports cast ripples which affect penal policy. They produce thematic reports on issues of concern in the penal field.
We have the Law Commission which does excellent, informed, authoritative work. What is its work? It is to deal with the effectiveness of the criminal law. That is what this amendment is asking for another body to do.
We have the Audit Office and the Audit Commission which deal with efficiency and effectiveness. We have reports which are of great value from the Institute of Criminology. We have reports from international institutes. We have a very well run research and statistical department in the Home Office.
Added to all these, within this Bill will be the representative youth justice task force. As the Home Secretary mentioned in the letter to which reference has been made, the youth justice board will provide advice on the operation of the youth justice system, and the sentencing advisory panel will have regard to the range of disposals available.
That is not all. I mentioned—I hope not disagreeably—that we live in a representative democracy. The House of Commons Select Committee on Home Affairs does a great deal of valuable work. I do not believe that it is party politically partisan. Its work, which is necessary on occasion, has at least two purposes: first, to address legitimate public complaints; and, secondly, to provide advice to the Home Secretary as appropriate. Most of these bodies were not in existence when the predecessor body carried out its work, sometimes rather slowly, before its abolition.
We gave the matter a good deal of careful thought. I hope that the nature of my response to your Lordships today indicates that. We want to have consultation. We want to have openness. But we want to avoid that extremely seductive temptress: "There is something wrong in the prison system. Set up another body".
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I am deeply grateful to those who have taken part in the debate and supported the amendment.
I was struck when the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said that there would be no immediate reduction in the prison population if this amendment were passed. No one has ever claimed that there would be. A process of re-education would take some time. The noble Lord is right that there will be no immediate reduction in the prison population. But there would be no reduction at all in the prison population if the matter were left to the Government as it stands at the moment because they have suggested no initiative of any kind which will bring about the reduction in the prison population.
170
As one of its functions, the council can seek to bring out information which will show the limits of imprisonment as a means of dealing with crime. It will bring out, one hopes, the advantages, in some but not all cases, of punishment within the community. It will seek to explain how it is that we have over 3,500 lifers in prison which is more than all of western Europe put together. It will seek to explain why, if there is a good explanation, we send more people to prison and for longer than almost every other European country.
There is a prospect of some useful research being done. The reaction of the Government is very much in the category of the reaction of the noble Lord, Lord Henley: "Don't embarrass me with sound advice because I might be obliged to take it". That seems to be the only reaction.
I nostalgically looked back at a debate which occurred in October 1997 and read this from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Williams:
"We listen with care to the senior judges. We value their contribution. I do not put this in a partisan way, but it was a source of great disquiet and concern that, by the end of the previous Government's term, the senior judges were not able to feel that their voice was listened to with the decent regard to which they were entitled. It took the notable contribution of, among others, the late Lord Chief Justice to try to remedy that. No one who heard his contribution could fail to have been affected by it".—[Official Report, 23/10/97. col. 871.]
Plus ca change; plus c'est la même chose. The Lord Chief Justice has recently set out in a long and learned speech that the mandatory life sentence for murder should no longer stand. We in this House have recently debated the proposition supported by the Home Affairs Committee that the time that a person spends in prison following a conviction for murder should not be determined by a politician in secret without any right of appeal. I do not think that the judiciary is being listened to any more by this Government than by the previous one.
It is an important amendment. If the Government are to reject the advantages which this amendment gives, let it be clearly on the record. I therefore seek the opinion of the House.
4.24 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 114; Not-Contents, 105.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L. [Teller.]

Brentford, V.

Addington, L.

Brightman, L.

Aldington, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Calverley, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Carlisle, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L

Beloff, L.

Chichester, Bp.

Bingham of Cornhill, L.

Cuckney, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

171

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Mashamof Ilton, B.

David, B.

Mersey, V.

Davidson, V.

Meston, L.

Dholakia, L.

Middleton, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Elton, L.

Munster, E.

Exmouth, V.

Nelson, E.

Ezra, L.

Newby, L.

Falkland, V.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Rather, B.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Foley, L.

Nolan, L.

Geraint, L.

Ogmore, L.

Gormanston, V.

Oliver of Aylmerton, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Onslow, E.

Halsbury, E.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Rennell, L.

Hampton, L.

Renton, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Rix, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Rochester, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Russell, E.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Holderness, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hooson, L.

Sandberg, L.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Sandwich, E.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Shannon, E.

Hutton, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Hylton, L. [Teller.]

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Slynn of Hadley, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L

Kinloss, Ly.

Taverne, L.

Kitchener, E.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Knollys, V.

Tenby, V.

Lane, L.

Teynham, L.

Lawrence, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Leicester, Bp.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Long, V.

Tope, L.

Longford, E.

Tordoff, L.

Lowry, L.

Wakefield, Bp.

Ludford, B.

Walpole, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Weatherill, L.

Maddock, B.

Wharton, B.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Wynford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Alport, L.

Fitt,L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Gallacher, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Gilbert, L.

Barnett, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Berkeley, L.

Glenamara, L.

Biffen, L.

Glentoran, L.

Blackstone, B.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Borne, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B. [Teller.]

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Brookes, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Gregson, L.

Burlison, L.

Grenfell, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Hardie, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Haskel, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Hayman, B.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Howell, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Hoyle, L.

Diamond, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Dixon, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Elles, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Islwyn, L.

172

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Levy, L.

Sewel, L.

Lockwood, B.

Shepherd, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

McCarthy, L.

Simon, V.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Marsh, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Stallard, L.

Merrivale, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Mishcon, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B

Molloy, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Monkswell, L.

Thurlow, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Tryon, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Nicol, B.

Varley, L.

Orme,L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Paul, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Whitty, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.35 p.m.
Lord Henleymoved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 24, after ("years") insert ("or more than five years)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a third run round some fairly familiar territory that we examined both in Committee and on Report. In Committee I suggested that perhaps it might be best to leave these matters entirely to the discretion of the courts—that is, the antisocial behaviour orders—and that it should be a matter for the court to decide what the period should be, having no maximum or minimum.
Noble Lords on the Liberal Benches at that stage suggested merely having a maximum. We came back to the matter on Report, and I suggested having no minimum length but having a maximum. This is a third attempt to suggest, having accepted the Government's arguments that these are serious matters to be taken seriously, that it is right that there should be a minimum. However, I still have a number of concerns about the lack of a maximum.
I would have thought that a maximum of five years would provide the courts and the Government with a long enough period for all the circumstances that one might imagine. In fact I find it difficult to imagine the sort of occasion when the courts might wish to impose an antisocial behaviour order for longer than five years. I should be very grateful if the noble Lord, when he comes to respond, could say on what occasion the Government envisage that the courts might wish to impose these orders for a period greater than five years.
I would also suggest that five years is a very long period, as perhaps many of your Lordships would accept. If the mischief was continuing and it was felt necessary that the antisocial behaviour order should

173
be for longer than five years, then five years would at least be an appropriate time to review the situation and to start the process again to consider whether it was necessary for the antisocial behaviour order to be continued or to make a new order. Therefore I feel that a limit of five years would be appropriate. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, as the noble Lord said, we have discussed this amendment, or similar ones, in Committee and on Report. We do not believe that the maximum ought to be limited. There is no such limitation on restraining orders in the Protection from Harassment Act of 1997.
The noble Lord asked what the basis of our approach was. It is that the court needs to be able to look at the full circumstances of a case and make its own judgment in the discrete circumstances of that case. It would, I imagine, wish to look at the whole of the circumstances, the nature of the person who was subject to the order, the nature of the complaints and perhaps even the nature of the complainants in the whole pattern.
I agree it might well he that a teenager would be suitably served by a two-year or a three-year order. It might well be six or seven for an older individual, particularly where antisocial behaviour has persisted over a number of years prior to the making of the order. There might be some circumstances where the court feels that no limit should be set. One has to bear in mind that this order is a prohibitory order and it requires that the person who is subject to it should do no more than have a decent regard for the susceptibilities and liberties of others. We are not able, therefore, having revisited this topic, to accept this amendment, and I would ask the noble Lord, on the basis of the further material I have given, to consider withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I shall in due course withdraw the amendment. It is not appropriate to subject the House at this stage to another Division. I am sorry that the noble Lord was not prepared to accept my arguments and that the Government still believe it right that there should be discretion at one end but not at the other for courts in making their decision. I believe that there will be relatively few occasions—and I think the noble Lord implied this in his answer—when the courts would want to exercise these powers for longer than five years. I hope it will be a very rare occurrence for these orders to be made for longer than five years. No doubt in due course the Home Office will offer guidance to magistrates' courts about how to make use of such orders. I hope it will consider offering guidance suggesting that an order for longer than five years will be made only in the most exceptional circumstances. Having noted what the noble Lord said in response to my amendment, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hyltonhad given notice of his attention to move Amendment No. 3:
Before Clause 8, insert the following new clause—
CHILD PROSTITUTES ETC
(".—(1) It shall be the duty of every local authority to apply to the court for an order to he made under section 44 of the 1989 Act (orders for emergency protection of children) in respect of any child (under 16) who is—

(a) found to resort to or be on any premises in the area of the local authority for the purpose of having unlawful sexual intercourse with men or a particular man, or

(b) cautioned or charged with an offence of loitering or soliciting in a street or public place in the area of the local authority for the purposes of prostitution.

(2) The duty referred to in subsection (1) may, with the agreement of the local authority, be discharged by an authorised person as defined in section 44(2) of the 1989 Act.
(3) In this section "local authority" has the same meaning as in the 1989 Act.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to speak to the group of amendments, Amendments Nos. 3, 15, 16, 17, 40, 77, 78 and 79. Amendment No. 40 is unnecessary and will not be moved. Amendments Nos. 77 and 78 are linked with Amendment No. 3. My noble kinsman Lord Mar and Kellie will move the amendments in his name relating to Scotland. I intend to move only Amendment No. 16, for reasons which I shall explain.
At the previous stage of the Bill there was unanimous agreement in all quarters of your Lordships' House that child prostitution is a serious and growing evil in many cities throughout the country. It is fed by the large number of young people under 18 and of children under 16 who run away from their own homes and from local authority care. In this context, what is supposed to happen when children abscond from children's homes? Forty-three thousand young people become missing persons each year in England and Wales. It has also been estimated that 10,000 children will have run away 10 times or more before their 16th birthday. They are the ones with nowhere to live, no income, no schooling and no links to state services or responsible adults. It is these children who all too easily become the victims of pimps and paedophiles. They are easy prey, and prostitution often appears to them to be the only means by which they can survive.
The Bill is intended to be a preventive measure. It is therefore fitting that it should provide ways of preventing child prostitution and means for increasing the penalties on those who organise it or indulge in it and of rescuing as many as possible actual and potential victims. I therefore examined carefully what was said by noble Lords at Report stage, and in particular the words of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, speaking for the Government. I have abandoned the attempt to decriminalise prostitution by young people and have avoided any reference in my amendments to young people between the ages of 16 and 18. Amendment No. 3 would have increased the present power of local authorities to provide care and protection to children at risk by making it a duty.
This duty would have covered not only those loitering or soliciting for purposes of prostitution but also those found at any time in brothels.
In view of the resource problems that were so well explained at Report stage by my noble friend Lord Northbourne, the linked amendment would have delayed the coming into effect of the new duty by two years. A subsequent amendment would have increased the penalties for procuring.
Amendment No. 16 is new and increases the penalties for illegal and criminal intercourse with girls under 16. That is the amendment that I intend to move in due course. I urge your Lordships to support me on this point, thereby showing your total condemnation of intercourse which is all too likely to damage the physical as well as the mental and emotional health of the children involved.
The reason that I shall not move Amendments Nos. 3, 15, 77 and 78 is that I am advised that they relate to matters already decided by your Lordships and I have agreed with the noble Lord the Leader of the House not to move them. I shall formally move Amendment No. 16 in due course, and I commend it to your Lordships. By passing that amendment, we shall take a small but highly desirable first step in dealing with the urgent matter of child prostitution. That amendment increases the penalties on those convicted of having sexual intercourse with girls under 16, which will be particularly useful in dealing with persistent offenders. If Her Majesty's Government wish to include offences against boys, which are much less frequent, I hope that they will do so in another place.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Clause 9 [Parenting orders: Supplemental]:
Baroness Davidmoved Amendment No. 4:
Page 8, line 6, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I put this amendment down again because there was such strong support for it from all Benches and not a single voice against at Report stage except the Minister's. I withdrew the amendment at that stage because the Minister said that he would be having discussions with other Ministers at the Home Office and I therefore hoped that there might be a different response.
I wrote to my noble friend pressing my case. I felt that, if magistrates had the power themselves to decide about making a parenting order in the case of 16 and 17 year-olds, they could be trusted, having information about the family before them, in the case of under 16s. It seems almost insulting to magistrates not to give them that power.
However, since I put the amendment down, I have received a letter from the Minister. It is perfectly clear that there will be no give and no change in his attitude. I have the agreement of my noble friend Lady Kennedy, who also has her name to the amendment, that it would be a waste of time to continue with this argument as the
176
result is so very clear. When the Minister has spoken, if he wishes to do so, I shall withdraw the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, as the noble Baroness implies, I set out the Government's position quite fully and I not sure that I can shed any further light by repeating the earlier arguments.
Baroness David: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Solicitor-General (Lord Falconer of Thoroton)moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 12, line 19, after ("of") insert ("a parent or").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment responds to an amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, at Report stage. The noble Baroness's amendment had the effect of extending the definition of responsible person in Clause 14(2) to include the parent of the child concerned. I indicated at that time that the Government recognised there was potential for a problem if such a change to Clause 14(2) was not made and that the Government would bring forward a suitable amendment at Third Reading. My noble friend Lord Williams referred to such an amendment in his letter of 26th March to the noble Lord, Lord Henley. Amendment No. 5 responds to this undertaking. I beg to move.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, it is very pleasant to be in the position of being able to thank the noble and learned Lord the Minister for responding to the points which I put on this matter at Report stage. It was a modest amendment but one which was practical in extent in that it will protect innocent parents under the age of 18 who take their children out and about between the hours of nine and six in areas where there may be a curfew order. I am grateful to the Government for listening on this matter. I certainly hope that it may be a portent of even greater things to come. But on this matter, I thank the noble and learned Lord.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Alton of Liverpoolmoved Amendment No. 6:
After Clause 16, insert the following new clause—
VIDEO RECORDINGS DESIGNATION
(".—(1) In subsection (1)(a) of section 4 of the Video Recordings Act 1984 ("the 1984 Act"), at the end there shall be inserted the words "and having special regard to the likelihood of video works, in respect of which such certificates have been issued, inciting their viewers to anti-social behaviour, crime or disorder".
(2) At the end of section 4 of the 1984 Act there shall be inserted the following new subsection—
"(9) The Secretary of State shall not make any designation under this section unless he is satisfied that adequate arrangements will be made for an appeal in prescribed circumstances against a determination on the grounds that a video work submitted for the issue of a classification is likely to incite its viewers to anti-social behaviour, crime or disorder.".").

177
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment stands in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the noble Lords, Lord Dholakia and Lord Ashbourne.
In February we had a short debate about the appointment of Mr. Andreas Whittam Smith as the new president of the British Board of Film Classification. It was an appointment which I welcomed. I said then that it was the intention of a cross-party group of Peers to lay an amendment to the Crime and Disorder Bill before your Lordships' House today. The purpose of that amendment is to strengthen the public's right to have their voice heard when gratuitously violent films are released and, inter cilia, also to provide better protection for children. I am very pleased to say that I have received a faxed note today from the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, which says:
"The NSPCC believes that the appeals procedure against classification decisions should he opened up by the British Board of Film Classification. The procedure should allow bodies like us, as well as members of the public, to appeal if it is felt that the film or video might incite viewers to anti social behaviour such as child abuse".
My amendment is jointly sponsored by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, by the noble Lords, Lord Ashbourne and Lord Dholakia, and by many others, including the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford, the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, and more than 60 Members of your Lordships' House who have kindly added their names to the amendment, underlining the widespread concern about the proliferation of violent imagery and the disparity between the huge influence wielded by the industry and the comparative powerlessness of the public.
On 17th March the Daily Telegraph reported that Mr. Whittam Smith had told the Home Office:
"In principle he is in favour of broadening the system of appeals against classification".
Under the present arrangement, film makers are allowed to appeal if they feel that a classification is too restrictive. Under the amendment before your Lordships today, organisations designated by the Home Secretary—those could be children's charities such as the NSPCC or the Children's Society or professional associations such as the Professional Association of Teachers—would be given the right, along with the industry, to appeal against BBFC decisions. Mr. Whittam Smith told the Daily Telegraph that he was,
"in principle in favour of anybody with a genuine interest in classification being able to use the appeals process".
In reality, the amendment I am moving today is far more modest than the general right of appeal which Mr. Whittam Smith says he favours. This does not open the process to anybody.
In a letter to me dated 30th March, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, who has been extremely considerate and patient in dealing with the points which I have raised with him in meetings and in correspondence concerning this matter over the past few weeks, said that neither he nor Mr. Whittam Smith
178
consider the amendment before your Lordships' House today to be workable. Let me deal directly with the arguments the Minister put in his letter of yesterday.
First, he says that the other interest groups will demand equal treatment. He does not say who the other interest groups are. It would be interesting for us to learn their identity. But if this argument were reduced absurdum, the National Association of Paedophiles would need to be treated comparably with the NSPCC, the National Front with the Commission for Racial Equality, and organisations promoting heroin and cocaine given comparable treatment to the National Drugs Misuse Council. It would be political correctness of the worst kind. The real point is that other interest groups are already represented by the industry and have an unlimited right of appeal already—a right currently enjoyed by no one else.
Secondly, in his letter dated yesterday, the Minister said that different groups may appeal against each other. But this is already perfectly normal in many appeal situations. The whole point is that the BBFC would then need to consider conflicting arguments in arriving at its decisions. The designated list of those who can appeal would be entirely composed of organisations chosen by the Home Secretary. What greater control could the Home Secretary wish for?
Thirdly, the Minister said:
"A person could only reasonably appeal against a classification decision after having seen the video work".
What happens in reality is that if a film is trailed in advance and many people are aware of the general storyline, people then raise their opposition or their concerns. It will be at that point, in advance of circulation, that the Home Secretary's designated organisations could ask to see the film. Their response and/or their appeal could be required—it would be quite proper for the Minister to expect this—in a very short time span. That is wholly practical and it would add no more time than the industry adds when it appeals a decision under the existing arrangements.
The truth is that the Government could have come forward with their own proposal at any time since I wrote to them before the Committee stage. These are the same arguments deployed against my 1994 amendment, which I moved in another place, which was only successful when an all-party group told the Government to overcome what they claimed were insurmountable hurdles. I was especially grateful, I might add, for the help given to me at that time by the then shadow Home Secretary, Mr. Tony Blair.
In the February debate, to which I alluded, the Minister likened the situation to the planning process. It is not in many respects to be likened to the planning process. First, when an application for planning permission is made a local council will advertise the fact in the local papers and publish notices that an application has been made. The British Board of Film Classification is obliged to do no such thing. In fact it is only in the board's annual report, which is published a year after the event, that full details of the application for certification are available, by which time of course it is far too late to do anything about it. The only other

179
method of letting the public know is by press release, which the BBFC has done on several occasions. By the time the public sees the film, again it is too late.
Secondly, if a local community does not like the decision made by a local council in the case of a planning decision, it is able to vote the local councillors out. A local council is demonstrably accountable. The British Board of Film Classification is not. A local planning authority is meant to be a democratic body. It was made quite clear in the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, that councillors are not simply meant to rubber-stamp planning applications but to play an active role.
In contrast, there has been continued and ongoing concern about the board's accountability. In another place in July last year Mr. Julian Brazier MP, the Member for Canterbury, raised the issue of the BBFC's openness and accountability. In response, via a press statement on 7th July 1997, the then director of the BBFC, James Ferman, defended the board's accountability by saying:
"Under the Video Recordings Act 1984 the board is already accountable to Parliament".
Mr. Ferman continued by saying that if Mr. Brazier,
"looks in the House of Commons Library, he will find the hoard's very detailed annual reports which have set out every year since 1985 the composition of the board, its procedures and a statement of accounts".
Section 6 of the Video Recordings Act 1984 does indeed require quite clearly that the designated authority, the BBFC,
"shall, as soon as it is reasonably practicable to do so after 31st December, make a report to the Secretary of State".
It is clear that the board has previously failed lamentably to fulfil this responsibility. The last annual report that should have been published as soon as practicable after 31st December 1996, was not published until 2nd December 1997. I am grateful to Stewart Gregg of the Movement for Christian Democracy for discovering that and for pointing it out to me.
By any stretch of the imagination a whole year later clearly does not meet the requirement to present an annual report, as soon as is practicable. After its presentation to the Secretary of State, the annual report has only just been laid before Parliament. That means that at one point the latest information about the board's activities with which Parliament has been presented, was two years old. Even if the board does present its annual report on time it does little to address the issue of public participation. The board has a monopoly on film classification. It is also funded by the very industry that it is supposed to regulate.
Thirdly, I return to the analogy with planning law that the Minister drew in our February exchange. It is generally accepted that the granting of planning permission should not have detrimental effects on the people of a local area. However, there are different categories of planning applications to identify the application which might cause harm. In such cases licences must be obtained for certain properties to be able to act or trade in a certain way. Therefore, it would
180
be more correct to draw a parallel between film classification and the granting of licences for the use of specific purposes. For instance, if premises are to be used as a betting shop or a public house, the police and local residents are frequently consulted. There are powers to take licences away if there are problems of harm, crime or disorder. There will be a court hearing at which local residents are able to make their case and the police are able to express their concerns. There are licensing magistrates.
To all intents and purposes this is a system of appeals. Provision is made for appeals in situations where there might be harm and so it should be for films as well. There is an ever-growing amount of evidence of the harm that violent images can cause. The BBFC's own annual report for 1996–97, page 3, says that handled irresponsibly, screen violence can teach techniques, encourage aggressive attitudes or reinforce aggressive behaviour. The House should be in no doubt about the seriousness of this situation.
Dr. Ken Parsons of Manchester University has demonstrated how children are being affected by the playing of violent video games. After a study of 61 teenagers over a six month period, he concluded that playing a game can be like real life for a child and that young people may well become addicted to violence as a result of playing the game. That is particularly grave if it happens during a time of key personal development. That is hardly surprising given that children are often playing computer games for up to 30 hours a week.
A recent Home Office report into the viewing behaviour of young offenders, which was unfortunately widely misreported in the press in January, finally concluded something that we all knew in our hearts for very many years. It states that there is some evidence that young people do imitate films. The BBFC needs to be much more open to the concerns of people drawn from right across the spectrum. Its present disposition is invariably élitist and often very patronising. For instance, the decision last week to allow films such as "Crash", "Lolita" and "Kiss" to be made available for home viewing illustrates how out of touch it has become. This is not about censorship because each of the films which I have just mentioned can be seen by adults in the cinema. But should they be easily available in thousands of homes where children are bound to see them?
For 25 years, at one level or another, I represented people in the inner city of Liverpool. In those streets and humble homes where often there was great material poverty, one thing that one would often find would be piles of videos, many of them totally unsuitable for young children and young people to see. The Daily Mail described last week's decision as being a gross betrayal of public interest. In a leading article it said of the BBFC, that, encased in their own celluloid bubble they appear to exist on another planet. They are utterly remote from that inhabited by ordinary people who have all too real reason these days to fear for the safety of their children.
Two days after the BBFCs decision, a national newspaper reported on the death of four children and

181
their pregnant teacher gunned down in Arkansas by two boys aged 13 and 11. The older boy, Mitchell Johnson, had bragged to his school friends,
"Everybody I do not like is going to die. I have a lot of killing to do".
Where does a child learn language like that? In a report in The Times of 26th March, Mr. Mike Huckabee, the Governor of Arkansas, said that he blamed a national culture in which films, television, language and music promoted a glorification of violence. He said,
"What makes all of us angry is that our culture would create the kind of atmosphere where a 11 or 13 year-old student could feel that the way to respond to whatever anger is inside them is to take up a whole battery of arms and indiscriminately shoot their fellow students and teachers".
The report continued by saying that he was not sure much else could be expected in a country where children are exposed to tens of thousands of murders on television and films.
The prevalent gun culture in the USA is the other combustible in this lethal cocktail. But guns have always been present in American society. In contemporary times the old restraints have been displaced by the coarsening of society; by the glamorising of extreme violence and by the normalising of viciousness and brutality. Who can doubt that the culture of casual violence has played its part? Certainly, increasing numbers of film makers from the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, to the actor, Dustin Hoffman, have been excoriating in their criticism of the industry for dressing up gratuitous violence as entertainment or as a form of art.
The stark reality is also that some parents are not fulfilling their responsibilities with regard to supervising what their children are watching. According to a survey in March 1997 by SMRC Childwise, nearly half of British children aged five to six years claimed that at weekends they watched television after the 9 o'clock watershed. These issues illustrate why we need to take action on a variety of fronts.
Perhaps I may draw the threads of this argument together and concentrate in my final remarks on why this amendment is practical, workable and urgently required. The BBFC state in its annual report that the most direct channel of accountability is replying to letters and telephone inquiries. This amendment will provide a far more satisfactory method of accountability and a way of allowing the public to voice their concerns, not merely their reactions on a telephone once it is too late.
The BBFC is faced with a huge problem about how to gauge public feeling. It is clearly frustrated that so often the tabloid press is left to be the vehicle for the expression of public opinion. Its annual report and press releases continually make reference to circumstances with which it has become depressingly familiar. It says that, somebody sees the film in question in its country of origin or at a film festival prior to international release and writes an article attacking it as the most dangerous film ever to be offered to the public. The press then canvass the opinions of dozens of prominent figures.
182
Then long before the BBFC has had a chance to view it and make its own analysis, it is deluged with warnings and injunctions not to permit the showing of the film. This amendment will provide a civilised and workable alternative to this vicious circle. The film "Crash", described by the BBFC as an unusual and disturbing film, concerns a couple who are unable to find sexual satisfaction inside or outside marriage and who fall in with a group of people who associate sexual excitement with car crashes. A BBFC press release says that their legal adviser took the view that rather than sympathising or identifying with the attitudes or tastes of the characters in this film, the average viewer would, in the end, be repelled by them. The film was granted an 18 certificate uncut for cinema release and now for home viewing by the viewer.
At the end of the press release James Ferman welcomed this advice by saying,
"Now the debate can move to the public arena".
But there can be no adequate debate. There is no mechanism for allowing such a debate while the industry has total access to the appeals procedure and ordinary members of the public have no method of finding their way into the appeals procedures. This amendment will make a small contribution to challenging the prevailing culture of violence and it will enhance the role of those who protect children. Powerful vested interests prefer the status quo. I hope that tonight your Lordships will resist the status quo and those powerful vested interests and support the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, for once again taking the initiative on video recordings. Some noble Lords present—although not many, I suspect—may remember that this is the subject on which I made my maiden speech in 1984. It is a sad reflection that many of the points that I made then need restating 14 years later.
I am concerned about the diet of sex and violence that we see in the video industry today. I realise that those with responsibility for classifying videos cannot control what Hollywood produces, but they are the guardians of deciding what material is appropriate for what age groups in this country. In this day and age, that is, indeed, a weighty task, so I support the proposals to add more definition to the task of the designated authority; namely, the British Board of Film Classification.
The last annual report from the BBFC acknowledges that video violence could affect individual behaviour. It states:
"The board's 1996 international conference on screen violence confirmed the causes for concern, which centre on the teaching of aggressive habits, the rewarding of antisocial impulses, and the fostering of increased callousness towards victims of violence through desensitisation".
Surely then it is not unreasonable for noble Lords to support the proposal that before making a classification the BBFC should take into consideration the additional criteria of the likelihood that a particular video could incite the viewer,
"to antisocial behaviour, crime or disorder".

183
One of my other concerns is the public accountability of the BBFC. I noted in the recent annual report descriptions of the home viewing panel and work with students, and I do commend these interactions with the video watching public, but they have still no right to appeal against classification decisions or to find out why certain decisions were made. They are more a test of, "Did the BBFC get it right?".
In 1984, I asked whether members of the public would be able to appeal to the Video Appeals Committee against a decision by the BBFC. I am pleased to see that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has proposed that recognised organisations, other than producers, will be able to appeal against the classification decision in certain circumstances. This would give some balance back to a process that currently allows practically no redress when a particular video is released which causes public concern.
I know that other appeals processes do not give an objector this sort of opportunity to pursue their objections. But I am sure that noble Lords will agree that comparing a planning application to classifying a video cannot be taken to extremes. An application for one house will affect only one particular area. Licences for pubs and betting shops can be revoked if the licensee acts outside the terms of the licence.
In contrast, a video work is classified by an unelected body, is likely to be reproduced thousands of times, circulated around the country and shown in individual homes, where, by the very admission of the BBFC, it could influence an individual to antisocial behaviour. I believe that there should be an appeal process that allows an organisation apart from the video producer to appeal against a video classification in the circumstances outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. I give the amendment my full support and I commend it to the House.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I have sympathy with the principle of this amendment because of my concern about video games. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, knows that I initiated a debate on 9th February on a particular video game, Grand Theft Auto, which was advertised with the slogan, "CRIME DOES PAY". I shall not go over that ground again, but that game had been granted an 18 certificate, so that it was a criminal offence, with fairly heavy penalties, for it to be supplied to persons under the age of 18. Very few adults have played, or play, that game or similar computer games, so we have an anomalous situation where the game is played virtually only by those of 17 years or younger. It can only encourage car crime and joy-riding, leading to danger to life and limb. Indeed, in the game, once the car had been stolen, other crimes may be committed.
We in the United Kingdom have the worst record in Western Europe for car crime, and have had for some years. The game gives young people the impression that stealing cars and committing other offences is a normal pastime. I presume that there will be few noble Lords
184
who are owners of cars who have not had their car stolen or broken into. That form of crime should not be encouraged.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, gave me a very good reply from the Government's point of view; that the Government cannot do very much on the subject. He agreed that it is not possible to regulate situations in homes and within families or to charge parents with supplying the 18-certificate game to their children or to other children, although that is a criminal offence. This is a difficult situation. I understand that the Government are in a cleft stick on this, but I have sympathy with the amendment and commend anything that could be done to improve the situation that I have described, which is highly anomalous.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment. The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, covered the ground so completely and satisfactorily that there is little else that I can add, except to commend the amendment to your Lordships' House and to say that I hope very much that the Government will accept it.
The subject of the amendment affects parents very deeply, particularly good parents who are trying to do the best for their children in a world which is beset with difficulties for them. As I understand the purpose of the Bill—it is one with which I entirely agree—it is to try to prevent young people falling into crime and to propose ways of dealing with them if they do. I cannot understand why there should be any question over trying to tighten the restrictions on such videos or giving those who object to them the right to appeal.
I have read many reports purporting to state that there is no link between seeing violence and actually practising it. I have never understood that argument. Why we believe that advertisements can affect people, but not video nasties, I cannot think. When I was at school, and in the schools in which I have been involved, teachers spent a lot of time trying to put before children those things which are good, right and true in the hope that they will have some effect. Even if they do not have any effect, teachers certainly will not put the reverse before children because they want them to grow up to be good citizens. I simply do not understand the argument that one influence has an effect but not the other. Screen violence has a profound effect. What is so worrying is that even children from good homes can nowadays see on television things that would have been simply unthinkable 25 or 30 years ago. They may have opportunities to see in their own homes the videos that were singled out by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. This is a serious situation and we should do everything that we can as a society to support good parents who are trying, in a difficult world, to do the best for their children.
I shall be interested to hear the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Williams. There may be some legal argument about why it is not possible to accept the amendment, but I hope that even if there are technical difficulties he will say that he will consider the matter further and produce a further drafting of the amendment.

185
However, it seems to me that this amendment says the very minimum that is required. It has two parts. The first would give the BBFC more power to deal with videos which encourage antisocial behaviour by adding additional criteria which would need to be considered by the board. That seems a perfectly reasonable request and I cannot see why there should be any doubt about it. The second part of the amendment relates to an appeals system. It would allow designated organisations such as the police or children's charities, or an individual, to appeal to the Video Appeals Committee in the same way as producers can appeal under specified circumstances. What is wrong with that? The amendment seems a minimum requirement for what is needed in this world.
Although I do not subscribe to the fact that this might be regarded as a provision which runs against artists' freedom to express themselves—as far as I can see, anybody who wishes to see such films, which strike me as being singularly disagreeable, can do so at the cinema—I believe that there is a case for trying to prevent such films being shown in the home. I really believe that there is a distinction. I know that it is difficult to legislate on what goes on inside the home. It seems to me that the two minimum requirements are to give more power to the organisation which is responsible for the standards which are set for home videos and to provide a right of appeal. I should have thought that there could be no real disagreement on this. I very much hope that the Government will accept the amendment.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, delivered a comprehensive and damaging description of the BBFC which will require study in order to get on board the full detail. Having heard the greater part of it—he was five minutes into his speech when I arrived—and looking at the amendment, I felt like someone who has taken his car for an MOT and hears it condemned as shambolic and unroadworthy and who is then given a short list of things to do to make it all right.
Whatever we do with the amendments, that institution should be, as it were, on probation for the next year or two to see whether it is running on the right fuel, whether it should be paid out of the proceeds of the film industry, for instance, and whether it is one of those institutions which those noble Lords who have taught in various places will find familiar as institutions which have developed their own culture and see the world from the position of that culture and do not see the world as the world sees it.
The amendment does not address that issue, except in one respect. The first leg gives to the board what my noble friend Lady Young has described as a new power, and which I strongly hope will be a new duty, to consider the likelihood of video works in respect of which certificates have been issued inciting their viewers to antisocial behaviour, crime or disorder.
All noble Lords have become accustomed to hearing from the Dispatch Box opposite a catalogue of negative research reports, all saying that the connection between violence in video and violence in behaviour cannot be
186
proved. I feel rather like Dr. Johnson who, being tackled on a subject equally difficult of proof—whether men have free will—with his great intellect said:
"We know our will is free, and there's an end on't".
It is obvious to all noble Lords that there is this connection. Even the last three tranches of research, to which the noble Lord referred, bear that out. The most recent was published in January of this year by Browne and Pennell at the instigation of the Home Office. While it is again inconclusive on the direct connection, it states that when parental violence was present offenders and non-offenders differed significantly, with offenders distinctly preferring violent films and characters. The implication is that a history of family violence and offending behaviour are necessary pre-conditions for developing a significant preference for violent film action and role models. The children to whom that referred had all committed—the control had not—violent crimes.
Statistically, there may not be the required connection, but all noble Lords must be satisfied, as indeed most have been, as my noble friend said, by the enormous sums paid out by industry to secure the changing of other people's behaviour by showing them things on television. It is perverse, is it not, to suggest that one can change it one direction by producing film material but not in the other?
I want also to draw to your Lordships' attention the merits of having some form of appeal system available outside the industry which this is meant to regulate—outside the people who create this material, but from among the people who have to receive it, whose children have it before them for up to 30 hours a week. They are the people who are affected. The appeal from within the industry protects bank balances. The appeal from outside the industry protects character. That is an essential piece of common sense. However long or short the future life of that board may be, I ask your Lordships to submit it to this new provision.
Lord Birkett: My Lords, although I am technically still a vice-president of the BBFC, I must emphasise that I speak for myself and out of my own experience. I do not entirely recognise myself or the BBFC from a great number of the things that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said. I certainly do not recognise myself as having lived in an insulated bubble, as described by the Daily Mail, but then, if I were going to sit for a portrait, I would not go to the Daily Mail as the painter thereof.
The amendment has two halves. I cannot believe that they will work. The first half is unnecessary. I share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, which I know are shared by many of your Lordships, about violence in the cinema, and especially in video, but I do not believe the amendment is necessary because the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 amended the Video Recordings Act with the following words, "The designated authority"—that is, the BBFC—
"shall, in making any determination as to the suitability of a video work, have special regard (among the other relevant factors) to any harm that may be caused to potential viewers or, through their behaviour, to society by the manner in which the work deals with criminal behaviour; illegal drugs; violent behaviour or incidents; horrific behaviour or incidents; or human sexual activity".

187
Further to that, "potential viewer" is defined in that amendment as:
"any person (including a child or young person) who is likely to view the video work in question".
At the BBFC we are very much aware that the mere sticking of a certificate on a video box does not by any means guarantee that it will not be seen by people of the wrong age.
However, that amendment encompasses what the noble Lord has put down in his amendment. As I know that belt-and-braces legislation is not favoured in your Lordships' House, I suggest that his concerns may be shared by all but that the necessity for that half of the amendment does not exist.
More importantly, the second half of his amendment deals with the appeals procedure. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, is a little unfair in describing the BBFC as being funded by the industry as if it had a subvention or private source of finance from the industry which somehow put it in the pocket of the industry. The truth is that the BBFC is simply funded by a fee that it charges for classifying either films or videos. That fee is calculated precisely to make the BBFC break even. There is no likelihood of it making a profit and, if it did so, it would not have anything to do with it. It cannot make a profit. Equally, it cannot make a loss if it is to remain in existence. I believe that the funding is as equitable and simple a matter as can be and the BBFC is not the industry, unless one proceeds on the basis that the industry is the only people who need certificates.
That leads me to the question of why, up to now, only the film and video industry has had a right of appeal. The reason is fairly simple. The makers or distributors of the films and videos concerned have a very large financial stake in the matter. If a certificate is granted for an age group much higher than the film maker intended or wished, or in the most extreme cases the BBFC refuses to certificate a work, the financial consequences will be colossal. That is why there must be a mechanism whereby an appeal can be made on behalf of the industry or the maker of the video in question.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, and other noble Lords may say that that is all very well but surely the commercial interests of the video maker are only half of it. What about the public good and the concern of the average viewer or member of the public? I believe that if a system of appeal is to be arranged it must be thought through a lot more carefully than this. If Mr. Andreas Whittam Smith is keen that some form of wider appeal should be possible, no doubt he will talk to the Home Office, and between them they will work something out. But at the moment the problem is very much as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has described it.
Sometimes an enormous amount of protest and controversy arises before a video or film ever appears, based entirely on the views of people who have not seen the work in question. I recognise very well the words in the annual report read out by the noble Lord—because I wrote them. It is indeed a quandary. Often we are faced
188
with storms of protest in relation to works we have not even seen, let alone certificated. I do not see how the public or those bodies designated by the Home Secretary according the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, will get to see the work. Once it has been certificated—at which point anybody can see it—the damage, if any there be, has been done. Even if the appeal overturned the decision of the BBFC, it would take a certain amount of time to withdraw the work in question. I predict that, if that happened, the saleability of the work would rocket in the days before its withdrawal, which would be counter-productive to everything intended by the noble Lord, Lord Alton.
At present, I cannot see how an appeal system of this kind can work. I was slightly dismayed by the phrase, "in prescribed circumstances", in the noble Lord's amendment. I did not know what it meant. Now that the noble Lord has explained his intention that certain organisations should be designated by the Home Secretary, the matter is a little more precise, but scarcely precise enough. At present, however well-intentioned the amendment, it will not wash. If the Home Office and the BBFC between them wish further progress to be made, I am sure that both are more than capable of making it.
5.30 p.m.
Viscount Tenby: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Alton. Despite the observations made by my other noble friend, I do not have the audacity to clash with anything that he has said, given his vast knowledge. I confine myself to the relatively mild observation that, if producers are so worried about financial implications, perhaps they should not sail quite so close to the wind in their productions.
This amendment is modest in its ambition. It seeks merely to redress the balance which has for far too long favoured the entertainment industry. One cannot criticise the right of that industry to appeal against a ruling by the BBFC on, say, classification. However, in the name of justice, why should not those at the receiving end have a similar right via duly authorised bodies? The industry is quick and loud in protesting its innocence in relation to charges of moral corruption, despite regular evidence to the contrary which all too depressingly links violence in films, videos and games to real events. The most recent example, sadly, is the events in Arkansas in the past few days.
We were told by apologists for the entertainment industry—the point was tellingly made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young—that such programmes did not have any effect. Really? In that case the industry with which I was associated in one way or another for much of my working life, namely, advertising, is wasting its time and, perhaps more importantly, the time of its clients. We are told that this is what the public wants. Why, then, are family videos in great demand in video shops? We are told that producers are only mirroring life. That is remarkable. I wonder how many of us derive sexual gratification from car crashes. It may well be that Mr. Andreas Whittam Smith, for whom I have a high regard, is ready to deal with these concerns. I very

189
much hope so, and I wish him well. In the meantime, we should take a stand now. To ignore the evil of gratuitous violence on our screens is to shirk our responsibilities to future generations and to society itself.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, despite the fact that I am not entirely convinced by the drafting of the amendment—I am slightly more convinced than I was since the former vice-chairman of the BBFC spoke—it is absolutely ridiculous to suppose that the climate of violence which surrounds young children today does not affect them. It is like saying that an upbringing in the countryside surrounded by dogs and kind people produces exactly the same effect as an upbringing in a deprived urban home where violence is part of the domestic environment. It is beyond belief that the two can result in the same outcome.
The first 10 years of my life encompassed the Second World War, but I was not surrounded by the kind of images with which our television screens bombard us today; nor were my children, who are now in their middle and late thirties. The availability of such images, and the way in which they have overwhelmed the media, particularly via our television and computer screens, must exercise an effect on young people's perception of the world about them. That influence blurs the distinction that children should be able to make between fiction and reality. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, has already mentioned the Jonesboro incident to great effect. When we see young children committing acts that are not childlike, and apologise for what they have done, we realise that they do not understand at the start what they are doing. They do not perceive where their actions will take them. However, when eventually they realise what they have done, they do what children do when they have done something naughty at home: they apologise, as though somehow that gets rid of the problem.
A noble friend on these Benches asked whether anyone was going to stand up for freedom of speech. I read Milton's Areopagitica when I was a girl. A copy used to be handed down from president to president of my party. It is part of our instinct and is written into our constitution. The question arises as to the limit of that free speech, and how government can affect it.
I am not satisfied that the amendment is quite what is required. I want to hear the Minister acknowledge that there is grave concern among people from many different backgrounds about the problem that I have tried to describe. People are deeply disturbed. We do not need the Sun or any other organs of the press to tell us about it; we know in our hearts and from conversations with colleagues and friends that there is unease about this widespread phenomenon.
I want the Minister to acknowledge the importance of the issue, and I want to hear how the Government, in their hundreds of reviews, intend to respond to the unease about this real problem. If I do not hear that, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, puts his amendment to a vote. I may very well support it.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I support the clear statements made by the noble Baroness. I support the
190
amendment on the grounds that it is unethical for this Government, who stress their ethical approach, to provide no appeal on behalf of the general public. It does not enable those who believe that a classification is too low to appeal against it. It is unbalanced for there to be no right of appeal from the offended side. Surely that is totally unjust. That, is pre-eminently my reason for supporting the amendment.
If the Minister believes the amendment to be unworkable, as has already been said by the vice-president of the BBFC, I wish to hear how there can be a workable form of appeal. It is unjust for there to be no right of appeal by any organisation on behalf of the public or by those who believe that an age classification is too low.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, I rise to speak in favour of the amendment. I hope that much of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and others has convinced your Lordships that the amendment is desirable. When the Bill was published there was much in it to be welcomed. When I spoke at Second Reading, I congratulated the Government on many aspects of it. However, I also pointed out that much of the content, admirable as it is, is concerned with the consequences of crime and better ways of coping with existing crime and disorder.
Crime and disorder are symptoms of a sick society. Most of what is in the Bill relates to ambulance work. I believe that if we vote for the amendment we shall be doing something modest but nevertheless worthwhile towards the provision of preventive medicine.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, I support the amendment, as I have told the noble Lord, Lord Alton. It is one way of showing that many of us are not afraid to say that the human body is to be respected. One is tired of saying, "We must not be abused". Such an amendment should be a light to people who say, "No, it cannot be helped", and such nonsense. We can show them that some of us believe that there is no reason for the human body to be abused and not given work and dignity.
That is one aspect of the amendment and it is why I am ready to support it. I hope that the Government will support it too, but, if not, that they will look at the matter, stating that they have respect for the human body. I believe that anything that destroys, destroys life. If work and respect are not given to a human body, we are destroying life—the mind, the soul and the body. That is what is happening in the world today.
Let us stand up with courage against those who say, "We cannot do anything about it. We have to accept it". We do not have to accept it. We have life: mind, soul and body. Anything which harms, destroys or abuses that life is wrong. Videos may not directly influence us, but in time they deaden us because we see so much of them. We must have the spirit of light within us to say, "No, we are not going to be deadened by all the rotten violence which we see before us". We need a strong character to turn it off.
Baroness Wharton: My Lords, I have great sympathy with all noble Lords who have spoken. We

191
have discussed the matter many times in this House. However, I have reservations about the amendment. It is open to every member of the public to lay a complaint should there be an appeals process, but I should like to know more of the detail. Who will comprise the appeals committee? If there is a request to the BBFC to re-classify videos, how will that affect films? Will there be one classification for videos and another for films?
Once a complaint has been lodged and is being considered, will the videos be taken off the market? What will happen to the videos in homes? How will the procedure be enforced, since there are hundreds of shops throughout the country selling videos? It will be difficult to enforce the measure. Will the BBFC be asked to reclassify a video?
I presume that the Home Secretary will select members of the committee. Therefore, are we not carrying out the work of the BBFC and laying a contentious issue at the door of the Home Office for it to make the final decision as to whether a video receives classification, is re-classified or is taken off the market?
While I sympathise with the amendment, I wish to know more of the detail, control and make-up of the committee. I shall reserve judgment until I have heard the Minister's reply.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I, too, have a degree of sympathy with the intentions behind the amendment, in particular subsection (2), which suggests a wider system of appeal. At present. the appeal system applies only to the makers of a film or video and not to the general public.
This is the third time that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has tabled this or a similar amendment: in Committee, on Report and again today. However, because of the lateness of the hour on earlier occasions, we were unfortunately unable to debate those matters and to debate them in the Committee atmosphere which allows one to pose the sort of questions which the noble Baroness, Lady Wharton, has asked. In Committee one can receive answers and question the Government and the mover of the amendment further in relation to the issues arising. To debate such a matter for the first time, ab initio, and to have to wait on the government response is a fairly unsatisfactory position for the House.
The matters which are being discussed go extremely wide and it would not be right for either the Government or myself to advise those who sit behind us on how to vote. It is a matter which should be left to conscience. But I shall certainly wish to hear the Minister's response and I shall listen carefully to it. If I were the noble Lord, Lord Alton, I should be extremely reluctant to press the amendment to a vote at this stage. The Bill has yet to be discussed in another place. Moreover, we have not had an adequate opportunity to discuss it in the Committee atmosphere to which I referred earlier.
Having said that, I shall be very interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has to say about the Secretary of State's attitude to such an amendment and what he believes should be done to ensure that the
192
public have an opportunity to make heard their views on videos of the sort that we are discussing and on occasions, if it is appropriate, to be able to appeal against the designation of a particular video work.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am most grateful to everyone who has spoken on this matter because plainly there are serious issues to be addressed.
If one looks at the phraseology of the amendment, the first part is not needed for the reason that has already been identified. It is expressed in an extremely broad way that the board must classify,
"having special regard to the likelihood of video works … inciting their viewers to anti-social behaviour, crime or disorder".
Antisocial behaviour is very widely put there and there is no attempt subsequently to define it.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, is that not already in the Bill?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, yes, but in an entirely different context, as I was about to indicate. If that definition were to be the definition attached here, I do not believe that that would satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Alton, in the slightest way. Therefore, that is not merely a technical or tendentious point. However, it may be helpful were I to reiterate what is the present state of the law before I deal with specific invitations in relation to the government stance.
Under the 1994 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act, the board has a duty—which is in the Act, significantly, because of the efforts of the noble Lord when he was a Member of another place—to have special regard to any harm which may be caused to potential viewers or, through their behaviour, to society by the manner in which the work deals with criminal behaviour, illegal drugs, violent behaviour or incidents, horrific behaviour or incidents or human sexual activity. I take the noble Lord's point about his stance on principle and, indeed, the stance adopted by the right reverend Prelate. It goes further, and I am glad to be able to repeat this. "Potential viewer" means any person, including a child or young person, who is likely to view a video work if a classification certificate were issued.
Therefore, I suggest to your Lordships that the first part of the amendment is of no value—I do not say that disagreeably to the noble Lord—because provision is already made by the criminal law to deal with that aspect. I recognise that that is not the fundamental question at issue because it seems to me that your Lordships' attention has been focused more on what one should do about the appeal procedure. Therefore, I shall spend a few moments on that.
I am not sure what lessons one can draw from Jonesboro. I do not know the facts except that I know that very small children, hardly more than infants or babies to most of us, had a diet of the use of guns at a disgracefully irresponsibly early age. What their exposure was to film, I do not know. I do not know what was their exposure to videos. But I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that one has

193
a diet of material on television which many of us believe is unsuitable for unsupervised children. Alas, that is a fact.
I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that we must ensure that the interests of the child are heard and that there is the opportunity for better protection. I do not believe that this proposed appeal system is capable of working, first, because there is no reference here to designated organisations. The point was made, rightly I believe, that at present the amendment allows an appeal at large. The appeal at large by any member of the public would be on the basis that the classification should not be given, or should be amended on a preliminary basis, on the basis that it was likely to,
"incite its viewers to anti-social behaviour".
That is extraordinarily wide. I do not know who did whisper from the Liberal Democrat Benches, "What about free speech?". There may be one or two usual suspects, but it is an extraordinarily wide provision and I accept the whispered encouragement.
To many of us, not least myself, antisocial behaviour includes smoking. I find it grotesquely antisocial, as I constantly remind my wife when she is standing outside the kitchen door having a furtive cigarette. (I must not take Hansard home with me tomorrow.) Therefore, one must see how we can achieve something which is workable.
The noble Lord has been kind enough to say that we have had a lot of discussion and correspondence. Indeed, I had a lengthy talk with him and his colleagues and I wrote to him on 30th March, yesterday. It may be helpful if I indicate what is our stance, because I have now received that request from a number of your Lordships.
I said to the noble Lord yesterday:
"The first point I would like to establish is that Mr. Whittam Smith is not in principle opposed to broadening the appeals process, as I said at our meeting",
that is, the meeting I had with the noble Lord, Lord Alton. The letter goes on:
"Indeed, as his comments in the Daily Telegraph show, he believes that there are substantial practical problems with the proposals you outlined in your amendment".
I was asked where the Government stand. I do not believe that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary could have made his stance plainer. The whole underpinning theme of the Crime and Disorder Bill is the protection of small children. He has been quite unambiguous in his expression of concerns and his determination to achieve that protection.
He appointed Andreas Whittam Smith recently. I do not believe that there was a single noble Lord in this House who spoke in the debate who did not welcome his appointment. He is just now in place. He has made it perfectly plain that he regards the concerns expressed this evening with great seriousness.
Mr. Whittam Smith has made a suggestion which I hope commends itself to those of your Lordships who put the inquiry. He is certainly not of a closed mind as regards an appeals procedure. He is now undertaking a review as the first aspect of his stewardship. He is in an extremely difficult position because it is one of the few
194
activities whereby whatever he does, he knows he will be assailed by someone. In a sense, whatever is done will only be as little wrong as you can establish. He has said that he is content to consider the setting up—and I hope this will commend itself to your Lordships—of an advisory panel for the interests of children.
I believe that that would meet the concerns expressed by the NSPCC and those expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, because we would then have children's interests on an informed basis feeding into the classification procedure at an early stage. I would commend that to your Lordships as being, first, open-minded on the part of Andreas Whittam Smith; and, secondly, being a proposal of practical utility. I cannot see that the amendment would work. Indeed, I cannot see that the appeals mechanism is workable in the form suggested. However, I do not wish to be negative and simply say that the wording is wrong. I return to the proposition that if one has an input, any voice—
6 p.m.
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but can he give us some indication as to who would appoint the members of such an advisory panel?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it seems to me that it ought to be Andreas Whittam Smith, who made the suggestion. However, there is no doubt in my mind, although I have not specifically consulted him in this respect, but that he would welcome suggestions from all interested parties, including the Children's Society and, not least, those of your Lordships who had a long-term interest in such matters. I believe that it would be a useful step. It would be a source of expertise at the time when it is needed; that is to say, right at the very beginning.
I recognise—indeed, we all have to—that this is only part of a problem. The video classification does not deal with violent comics or with television in the home. From the little television that I watch in my own home, I am rather surprised on some occasions to see that it is readily available to unsupervised children as young as seven or eight. Whether or not such programmes are screened before or after the nine o'clock watershed, the situation strikes me as being rather artificial. However, I should point out that that is my own personal view rather than a governmental one. It seems to me that the watershed may have its deficiencies. I stress again that that is my view and not necessarily that of the Government. Indeed, the two are always coincident, except on certain occasions.
I hope that I have dealt with your Lordships' concerns. I see that the noble Lord wishes to intervene.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am much obliged. The Minister cannot give a commitment; indeed, it is not his to give. However, will he bear in mind the great importance of publishing the advice of such an advisory panel on children's interests? If it is merely a closed

195
machine, one will not know what influence it is having and that in itself will diminish its influence. However, if its advice is known, it would be reassuring to the public.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, can the Minister indicate the time-scale that he has in mind within which such an advisory committee would be established?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is quite right; I cannot give the commitment. All I can say is that the Government believe in openness. I further believe that, if those who give advice know that it will be public, that would be an important internal structure of discipline because it would make the quality of the advice better.
As regards the request of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, I am afraid that I cannot give him that information. I have had discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Alton, quite recently; indeed, as recently as my letter of yesterday. I do not know what the noble Lord's definitive view will be. However, I believe that, given a fair wind and determination, there ought to be no real difficulty. Certainly, Andreas Whittam Smith is determined. Therefore, I do not see why such a panel should not be adopted within a few months; and, indeed, one of practical utility.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way. Perhaps he could clarify one point as regards the Government's justification for the following. On the one hand, if the BBFC did its work properly and honoured its obligations to take into consideration the effect on children and all the requirements that are already an obligation for it, even taking advice from the advisory committee that could be set up under the promise of Andreas Whittam Smith, and found in favour of not giving the video a licence, there is a right of appeal by the industry. Alternatively, if the BBFC, still taking all those things into account and still being advised by an advisory committee—that is, if there were to be one—took the view that a film should be licensed which, in turn, gave rise to great concern and disquiet among parents and those interested and worried about children watching such a video, there is no right of appeal. I do not understand how the Government can justify that state of affairs.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, as is notoriously well known, there is no right of appeal at present by anyone other than the producer or the distributor. However, that is the scheme of the legislation which we inherited. We are looking into the situation at the moment. I have said that Andreas Whittam Smith has been put in place to do a specific job. His appointment was roundly welcomed by everyone who spoke in our debate on the subject. He has said that he is not in principle opposed to broadening the appeals process. When he reaches his conclusion, the Government will obviously give it proper consideration. However, I cannot commit the Government before I know the nature of his conclusion.
196
For the reasons that I set out fully in my letter to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, which he was courteous enough to refer to, Andreas Whittam Smith does not believe that the amendments will work; neither do the Government. On the basis of the explanations that I have given, not least the further invitation to consider the input of a children's advisory group, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment. As I said, the proposal is not workable.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I have a sense of history almost repeating itself because precisely the same arguments which the Minister has put so eloquently today were put forward in 1984 when I moved amendments in the other place to provide for the very points to which the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, referred during his earlier contribution. It was the amendment that I moved for the Video Recordings Act 1984 (which was ultimately incorporated by the Government) which provided for special regard to be given to harm through behaviour. The noble Lord with whom I jousted on the subject before will be well aware that that was introduced into law for that very reason. The noble Lord is also no doubt aware that, following the enactment of that legislation, where people have tried to challenge decisions of the BBFC it has been a virtual impossibility.
Perhaps I may give the House one example in that respect. A young single black woman, a single parent, who was living in Brentford decided that it was against the interests of her child for the film "Natural Born Killers" to be made available on video for home viewing. She sought to take her case to the courts, but the entire wealth of the industry would have been stacked against her. She was advised ultimately that it would be impossible for her to take her case through a court of law. Therefore, the law provided no justice for her at all.
In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Wharton, I should point out that the situation will not arise where every member of the public will want to exercise his or her right in the way that the young single parent to whom I referred attempted to do. We are seeking to provide that prescribed organisations—that is, those designated by the Home Secretary; indeed. I have suggested that they might include children's organisations such as the NSPCC—should simply have the same right of appeal that already exists for the industry. The noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, pointed that out and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, incisively made that point in her recent intervention. Your Lordships would be ill-advised to accept as a substitute for that an advisory panel for the interests of children. Indeed, such panels already exist; for example, organisations like the NSPCC do that job admirably. As I said earlier, the society very much welcomes the amendment before the House today.
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, said that it would have been better had these debates taken place on Report. Of course I agree with him. However, he will recall that on Report a vote had been taken only moments earlier and the time was fast approaching midnight. Indeed, if it had not been for my own vote being cast with the

197
Government on that occasion, I do not believe that the 30 votes which comprise a quorum necessary to keep the House sitting would have been managed. Therefore, in the circumstances, it was not practicable to proceed with the amendment on that occasion.
I withdrew the amendment in Committee precisely so that the Government could come forward with workable proposals if they did not feel that my amendment was workable. Indeed, I went to see the noble Lord and we had a productive meeting. I am grateful to him for the way in which he has dealt with me personally and for the courteous way in which he has dealt with the points with which he has been acquainted. However, the Government have not come forward with an alternative. Simply to reply on the good offices of Mr. Andreas Whittam Smith, as much as I welcomed his appointment in February when we had a short debate on the matter in this House, is really not good enough.
For instance, last week Mr. Andreas Whittam Smith personally supported the decision of the board to release "Crash", "Lolita" and "Kiss". He said of "Crash" that the subject matter was too obscure to generate antisocial behaviour. Many of us would wish to disagree with that decision, but what good is it to be able to approach an advisory committee on children's affairs? We need some sort of appeals mechanism so that we, as well as the industry, can say that a decision will not stand up and that the materials in question ought not to be available for home viewing. At the moment we have a lopsided system. As my noble friend Lord Tenby said, the advertising industry does not believe that videos and TV have no effect on those who watch them. The industry would not have spent £4,000 million last year trying to sell wares through TV advertisements if it thought that what we saw had no effect whatsoever upon us.
I do not pretend that everyone who views this kind of material behaves in an antisocial or violent manner. However, a child who is living on the edge may be tipped over the edge. If a child who is brought up in a home where there is no love, support or parental help is exposed solely to a diet of gratuitous violence we should not be surprised if that child subsequently behaves in that manner. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, made that point. There have been many telling interventions during this debate. I am grateful to noble Lords for debating these points.
My experience in 1994 was that, if we do not take the Government to the wire, they will continue to rely on advisory committees and nothing will be done to regulate an industry that is allowed to regulate itself. Vast amounts of money are involved in that industry, as the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, said on a previous occasion. If you think that a child is in danger of being run over by a railway engine, you do not wait until that happens before you put up a fence to protect that child. That is all that I ask your Lordships to do today. If the Government feel that the amendment is in any way unworkable, there will be plenty of opportunity in another place to put that right. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
6.11 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 6) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 81; Not-Contents, 122.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Leigh, L.

Aldington, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Alton of Liverpool, L. [Teller.]

Longford, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Bath and Wells, Bp.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Beloff, L.

Meston, L.

Blatch, B.

Milverton, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Minto, E.

Brentford, V.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Brookes, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Caithness, E.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Calverley, L.

Nelson, E.

Carlisle, Bp.

Newall, L.

Carnock, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Coleraine, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Cranbrook, E.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Cuckney, L.

Perth, E.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Dholakia, L.

Powis, E.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Prior, L.

Elton, L.

Renton, L.

Gisborough, L.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Rochester, L.

Greenway, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Halsbury, E.

Sandwich, E.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Seccombe, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Stewartby, L.

Hemphill, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hereford, Bp.

Swansea, L.

Holderness, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hooper, B.

Taverne, L.

Hooson, L.

Tenby, V.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Hylton, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Waddington, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Weatherill, L.

Kenilworth, L.

Wynford, L.

Leicester, Bp.

Young, B. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Chandos, V.

Addington, L.

Clancarty, E.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Alport, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

David, B.

Barnett, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Berkeley, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B

Birdwood, L.

Diamond, L.

Birkett, L.

Dixon, L.

Blackstone, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Borrie, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Falkland, V.

Burlison, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Carew, L.

Fitt, L.

Carlisle, E.

Gallacher, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Geraint, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Gilbert, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

199

Glenamara, L.

Newby, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Nicol, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Onslow, E.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Orme, L.

Gregson, L.

Paul, L.

Grenfell, L.

Peston, L.

Hardie, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Hayman, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Howell, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Rea, L.

Hoyle, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Russell, E.

Islwyn, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Sewel, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Shepherd, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Simon, V.

Kilbracken, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Lockwood, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

McNair, L.

Varley, L.

McNally, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Maddock, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Walpole, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Wharton, B.

Molloy, L.

Whitty, L.

Monkswell, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Monson, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 20 [Procedural provisions with respect to orders]:
6.20 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Hardie)moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 17, line 21, after ("shall") and insert (", without prejudice to the determination of an application under subsection (7)(b) above made after the lodging of the appeal.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the purpose and effect of this government amendment is to make it clear that a sheriff may determine an application to vary or revoke an antisocial behaviour or sex offender order even where an appeal against the original order has been lodged.
At Report stage we discussed in some detail the amendments laid by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, which would have allowed the court to suspend antisocial behaviour and sex offender orders pending the disposal of an appeal. I indicated at that time that there was no need for such an amendment because the subject of an order may at any time apply to the sheriff on a summary application to have an order varied or revoked.
200
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, was kind enough to agree that there was no need for his amendment if that was the case, and I undertook to consider the matter further to ensure that there could be no doubt about this. Having looked at the matter in detail, I agree that it would be helpful to make it explicit on the face of the Bill that the provision in Clause 20(10) that orders continue to have effect pending the disposal of the appeal is without prejudice to the provision in Clause 20(7)(b) that orders may at any time be varied or revoked on a summary application by the applicant or the person against whom the order is made. This amendment does that. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I laid the amendment; I am now content with what he has proposed.
Lord Henley: My Lords, in the absence of my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, and confessing to a total absence of any knowledge of Scots law, I gained the impression that this was responding to some of the concerns of my noble and learned friend. That being the case, on behalf of my noble and learned friend I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for the amendment and have no objections to it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Mar and Kelliemoved Amendment No. 8:
After Clause 20, insert the following new clause—
SUPERVISED ATTENDANCE ORDERS FOR THOSE CONVICTED OUTWITH SCOTLAND
(" .—(1) A court shall make a supervised attendance order under section 235 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 in the circumstances specified in subsection (2) below.
(2) The circumstances referred to in subsection (1) above are that the offender—

(a) is of over 18 years of age; and

(b) has been convicted of an offence in a jurisdiction outwith Scotland in respect of which the penalty was a period of imprisonment.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, the purpose of Amendment No. 8 is one that I have drawn to your Lordships' attention on previous occasions, particularly during the passage of the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill last year.
There is a real need for powers of supervision over offenders convicted and imprisoned overseas and who are deported back to Scotland. This situation has been highlighted by the case of Mr. Archibald McCafferty who was deported to Scotland from Australia at the end of a life sentence for murder. There is another similar case about to evolve in Australia. As international mobility and freedom of passage becomes more prevalent, so will the number of Scots being gaoled abroad become equally so.
It has been said to me that there may be injustice and technical difficulty in matching offences and sentences from other jurisdictions. The Secretary of State will be able to identify the circumstances in which an

201
ex-prisoner would qualify for and benefit from supervision. Supervision may have some benefits by way of a commitment by the local authority social work department to assist that person in his resettlement in Scotland. Mr. McCafferty seems not to have received any help from the local authority but, curiously, was assisted by an ex-prisoner.
The problem of Scots being imprisoned abroad and deported back to Scotland on liberation will grow. It would be sensible to take this action now rather than waiting until such an offender unrepentantly reoffends in Scotland, thereby causing a public outcry. It would also send out a useful message to all Scots that their actions abroad will not be without consequence on their return to Scotland. I beg to move.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, I regret that I cannot accept this amendment because, apart from anything else, it is technically flawed. It does not make clear the circumstances in which a supervised attendance order might be made or the category of persons that it is intended to affect. As it stands, it is simply a blanket power for the court to make a supervised attendance order against anyone convicted of an offence outwith Scotland in whatever circumstances.
Your Lordships will be aware that supervised attendance orders are restricted by statute to fine default. In these circumstances, I would invite the noble Earl to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I will withdraw the amendment because I admit that the wrong wording was used and that a supervised attendance order is too junior a level of supervision. It is necessary that the courts or the Secretary of State, and subsequently the Scottish Parliament, should have the power to apply for post-release supervision of someone who has been convicted and imprisoned for serious offences abroad and who is then deported back to Scotland.
I had hoped that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate would take it away and think again about it but I did not get that message. I do not promise that my honourable friends in another place will not bring it back. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 9:
After Clause 25, insert the following new clause—
RACIALLY-AGGRAVATED CRIMINAL DAMAGE
(".—(1) A person is guilty of an offence under this section if he commits an offence under section 1(1) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 (destroying or damaging property belonging to another) which is racially aggravated for the purposes of this section.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

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

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years or to a tine, or to both.

202
(3) For the purposes of this section, section 24(1)(a) above shall have effect as if the person to whom the property belongs or is treated as belonging for the purposes of that Act were the victim of the offence.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the Government have listened carefully to the views expressed by noble Lords during the progress of the Bill and to the views of other interested parties regarding the need for a specific racially-aggravated criminal damage offence. We understand the strength of feeling that this issue has provoked and we recognise that it is important that this Bill should send a strong message that such behaviour is unacceptable. My noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, at Report that we would accept in principle the creation of a specific offence and that we would look very carefully at his amendment and attempt to overcome the technical problems that both he and the Government had identified. This amendment will, I believe, address the concerns of the noble Lords who have spoken in the previous debates.
This new clause will create a new offence of racially aggravated criminal damage based on the existing offence contained in Section 1(1) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971. The new offence will carry a maximum sentence of 14 years' imprisonment.
The maximum has been set at 14 years not 12 years for two reasons. First, as the current offence carries a 10-year maximum, the next scale in the normal sentencing ladder is 14 years. We do not normally create offences which carry a 12-year maximum. Secondly, as the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, indicated during Report, if the case is a serious one and the offender is under 18 then unless the maximum sentence is 14 years the offender cannot be dealt with under Section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1963.
The other potential problem with this offence was reconciling the victim of the offence with the victim of the racial hostility. To take the example cited in earlier debates, in cases where racial hostility was demonstrated to tenants of a house which was damaged, there had been doubts about whether the tenants could always be said to be victims of the damage itself.
The definition of those to whom damaged property belongs for the purposes of the 1971 Act is, however, wide enough to cover all those who have custody, control, a proprietary interest, or a charge over property that is destroyed or damaged. This is the definition that is adopted in subsection (3) of the new clause.
As I have said, we have listened to the views expressed by noble Lords. I believe that this clause will address the concerns of all those who have called for a specific offence of racially aggravated criminal damage. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, the Minister will be aware that my noble friend Lord Dholakia was concerned at earlier stages about this issue. At that point our criticism was that, although technically we could understand that various offences were already covered by existing law, if one were at the receiving end of such an offence—if

203
one were from an ethnic minority and suffered this kind of criminal damage—it would not look or feel, and indeed was not, like run of the mill criminal damage.
I believe that I speak for all on these Benches in welcoming the Government's flexibility on the matter, and the way in which they have approached it. That is welcome to us. Perhaps more importantly, it will be welcomed by ethnic minorities who have undoubtedly been victims of racially motivated criminal damage.
Lord Henley: My Lords, we also raised this concern both in Committee and on Report. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for coming forward with the new clause. We give it our wholehearted support.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 10:
After Clause 29, insert the following new clause—
EFFECT OF CHILD'S SILENCE AT TRIAL
(" . In section 35 (effect of accused's silence at trial) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 ("the 1994 Act"), the following provisions shall cease to have effect, namely—

(a) in subsection (1), the words "who has attained the age of fourteen years"; and

(b) subsection (6).").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with Amendment No. 10 are grouped Amendments Nos. 31, 100, 104 and 105. It may be convenient if in moving Amendment No. 10 I speak to those amendments.
Amendment No. 10 deals with the inferences which a court or jury may draw if a defendant fails to give evidence at his trial, or refuses without good reason to answer any question. On 19th March on Report, I indicated to your Lordships that I would bring forward such an amendment, and the related amendments are consequential.
The purpose of the new clause is to amend Section 35 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 which deals with inferences to be drawn. They remain to be drawn at the moment when the defendant is under the age of 14, when the guilt of the accused is not an issue, or when the defendant's physical or mental condition makes it undesirable that he should give evidence. We wish to remove the age restriction from Section 35, but the remaining restrictions in Section 35—this may be of importance—will not be affected.
There are two principal reasons. The first is consistency with the intention to abolish the presumption of doli incapax, as indicated in Clause 29 of the Bill. Therefore a court or jury will be able to draw the inferences I mentioned. In most cases it is reasonable to conclude that a child of this age, if the circumstances are clearly explained to him or her, will be able to understand the consequences of refusing to answer a question, or of refusing to speak up on his own behalf. It is not unreasonable to expect someone who has an innocent explanation to provide that explanation. When it seems to the court or the jury that that is not the case, the child will be protected by the provision in Section 35 which allows the court not to draw
204
inferences if it considers that the child's mental or physical state makes this undesirable. We would expect the magistrates, or in rarer cases a Crown Court jury properly directed by the Crown Court judge, to bear these matters carefully in account.
The second reason for introducing the amendment is to achieve consistency, not with the new legislation to which I referred a moment ago, but with existing legislation. There are no restrictions on drawing inferences from the failure of 10 to 13 year-olds to mention facts when charged or questioned. That is Section 34 of the 1994 Act. All children above the age of criminal responsibility are already treated equally under Section 36 of that Act which is the failure or refusal to account for objects, substances or marks; and Section 37, the related failure or refusal to account for presence at a particular place. What we are doing is to bring the position of those young people in court into line with existing related provisions.
We look to treat all juveniles in the same way except where individual circumstances clearly merit different treatment. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his introduction of the new clause as set out in Amendment No. 10. We have no objection to that. We welcome the change of heart that it seems to indicate on the part of the Government. I seem to remember that in Opposition they firmly opposed the removal of the so-called right to silence.
I intervene on this occasion to speak not to Amendment No. 10 but to Amendment No. 105 in the group. I have a number of concerns raised by that amendment. The noble Lord presumably grouped Amendment No. 10 with Amendment No. 105 because it would not be possible to have the new clause unless one amended the Long Title of the Bill, as does Amendment No. 105. As well as adding in the Long Title,
"and to make provision as to the effect of a child's failure to give evidence at his trial".
Amendment No. 105 also includes,
"to abolish the death penalty for treason and piracy".
That seems to be an admission that the amendments originally moved at Report stage by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, were not within the scope of the Bill. I shall be grateful for confirmation as to whether or not that is the case.
That brings me to another point. It is a point which arose from remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, when he spoke to but did not move Amendment No. 3 earlier. He seemed to imply when speaking to that amendment that he had received advice from the Lord Privy Seal that it was not appropriate to move Amendment No. 3 and one or two others. I presume from that the Lord Privy Seal was advising him that those amendments were not within the scope of the Bill and that therefore it would not be right for him to move them at Third Reading.
If that is so, it raises some concerns. By what right does the Lord Privy Seal offer advice on these matters? If an amendment has been tabled, and accepted by the

205
Public Bill Office, surely it is a matter for the House, and the House alone, to decide whether an amendment is within the scope of the Bill. I appreciate that this argument goes somewhat wider than Amendment No. 10 and the amendments grouped with it. However, I should be grateful for a response. We shall be able to come back to Amendment No. 3 when the noble Lord speaks to his Amendment No. 16, on which he wished to test the opinion of the House. It would be useful if we could hear exactly what advice the Lord Privy Seal was offering on this occasion, and by what right he offered such advice. For example, will he offer similar advice when we come to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Renton? Alternatively, will that now be within the scope of the Bill because it has been dealt with by Amendment No. 105 which includes the words,
"to abolish the death penalty for treason and piracy"?
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend could give me some reassurance in relation to Amendment No. 10. This amendment was introduced for the first time at Third Reading, although it is right to say that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, did trail it as a "forthcoming attraction" at the Committee stage. However, I am concerned to know whether there has been any consultation with the Bar Council, the Law Society or the Criminal Bar Association.
When a defendant is aged between 10 and 14, in reality the decision on whether to give evidence is not taken by the child. It is the decision of the advocate. The child does what he is advised to do. Indeed he is usually quite incapable, no matter how carefully it is explained, of understanding the meaning of "adverse inferences" or what the consequences of the choices open to him are. There may be very good reasons that fall short of those given by the noble Lord for advising the child not to give evidence. He may be inarticulate and not able to give a proper account of himself. He may be frankly terrified and likely to be an appalling witness. It may be that the effects of giving evidence and being cross-examined are, in the view of his family although not perhaps of a psychologist, personally likely to be damaging.
In practice I suspect that there will be few cases where a magistrate or a judge would think it right to direct a jury or indeed to direct themselves that adverse inferences should be drawn from a child's failure to give evidence where counsel has so advised. However, I wonder whether the noble Lord could tell me where the pressure for this change comes from. I am not aware of any difficulties. Ten year-olds were expressly and for good reasons excluded from this part of the 1994 Act. Why is this change now considered to be necessary?
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Henley for mentioning that if my Amendment No. 30 is to be accepted, as I hope it may be, the amendment concerning the Long Title in Amendment No. 105, the last on the Marshalled List,
206
would have to be amended either this evening by a manuscript amendment—and there is no problem about that—or when the Bill reaches another place.
Lord Meston: My Lords, it is perhaps unfortunate that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, referred to the advice which the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, I think has received in respect of his amendments when the noble Lord is not in the Chamber. Of course that is an accident and nothing more. But, as I understand it, the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has taken the course he has decided to take in respect of most of his amendments on the Marshalled List for Third Reading not for any reason other than that they apparently are not sufficiently different from those amendments which failed at the Report stage, suffering as they did the procedural mishap—
Lord Henley: My Lords, I think we divided on those amendments at Report stage.
Lord Meston: My Lords, the noble Lord. Lord Hylton, is now in his place and perhaps he can put us right if he has had a chance to catch up with the debate. I certainly understood there were procedural reasons why he felt unable to proceed with at least some of his amendments at this stage.
The Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells: My Lords, I should like to ask a question about this provision which supports the question which the noble Baroness has put, so to speak, from the legal environment. I should like to ask a question from the moral environment, not that that is in contrast to the legal environment, but just to give it a further dimension.
The Minister stated that one of the priorities of the Bill has been the protection of small children. Indeed, it includes legislation which intervenes in the lives of children at risk to bring them into the sphere of greater care and support and to try to prevent the brutalisation of children that takes place in their lives both at home and on the street. At various places in the Bill we see children exposed to the adult world, its procedures and expectations. The removal of the doli incapax is one part of this, and I understand the reasons why that has been removed. However, this further removal of the right to be silent seems to me to be a further exposure to that adult world. If the purpose of the Bill in a very deep way is to protect children, I cannot understand how this provision furthers that protection.
The childhood of a person seems to be a very fluid idea and one which is quite difficult to grasp sometimes as we tackle this Bill. It would be wrong not to register the fears that we have that this provision, with certain others, removes boundaries of protection from children which are necessary. The Minister said that the two reasons why this further amendment was needed was, first, not to be inconsistent with the removal of the doli incapax. The other was to achieve consistency with other laws. My question is: how is this consistent with the purpose and priorities stated in the Bill to protect children?
Lord Hylton: My Lords, for the removal of doubt, it may be appropriate to say that the reason why I am not

207
moving two or three amendments standing in my name today has nothing to do with the Long Title of the Bill but rather that I have been advised that they touch on matters which have already been decided by your Lordships at an earlier stage.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, following upon the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, would the Minister confirm that there is no reason why an advocate appearing for a child between the ages of 10 and 14 should not reveal to the magistrates or to a jury that he had given advice to the child not to give evidence in a particular case? If that were not to happen, it would be quite unfair for a tribunal of fact to draw an adverse inference against a child who had been so advised. I hope the Minister can help me with that.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not think that it is professionally proper to tell a court what advice one has given to one's client, whether an adult or child—not directly. It seems to me it would be perfectly proper to say either to the magistrates or to the jury in the Crown Court: "This is a young child and you have to bear in mind that I have been acting for him or her and I would ask you not to draw any adverse inferences against the child". I do not think one would be entitled to go further than that.
However, I do not think it is my present duty to be giving legal opinions on how advocates, solicitors or counsel address juries or magistrates. The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, asked me what consultation there had been. There was no consultation on this because, as I have said, this is simply making it consistent with what already obtains in Sections 34, 36 and 37 of the 1994 Act. I am bound to say that I would tend to agree with her that in practice adverse inferences would be perhaps relatively rarely drawn and of course the nature of the inference might differ. Sometimes an inference may be heavily adverse and sometimes almost vestigial, if existing at all.
The right reverend Prelate asked about the boundaries of protection. We do not wish to take them away but simply to introduce a harmony and consistency with what presently obtains and has obtained since the passage of the 1994 Act. I respectfully repeat, in other words, that there are no restrictions at all on drawing inferences from the failure to mention those matters which are specified in Sections 34, 36 and 37.
I do not think it is appropriate for me to say anything about what the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, said. It is unfortunate, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Meston, that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, was not able to be present in the Chamber when the question was raised, but of course it was not I who raised it. In respect of Amendment No. 105, the death penalty amendments which were put down by my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell were not outside the scope of the Bill. The amendment concerning the Long Title is simply consequential, which is not the same matter as
208
"scope". I entirely agree with the thrust of what was said; it is for the House to decide what is or is not within the scope.
Lord Henley: My Lords, if the amendments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, which have gone through were not outside the scope of the Bill, why is the second part of Amendment No. 105 necessary when the noble Lord says that it is merely consequential? Either it was necessary or it was not. If the noble Lord includes it, it implies that it was necessary, which implies that the amendments were outside the scope of the Bill at the time we discussed them.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it was a consequential amendment; it was not necessary to make the amendments within the scope of the Bill. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, could move his amendments successfully.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 30 [Abolition of death penalty for treason and piracy, etc.]:
Lord Williams of Mostynmoved Amendment No. 11:
Page 24, line 5, at beginning insert—
("(A1) In section I of the Treason Act (Ireland) 1537 (practising any harm etc. to, or slandering, the King, Queen or heirs apparent punishable as high treason), for the words "have and suffer such pains of death and" there shall be substituted the words "he liable to imprisonment for life and to such".
(A2) In the following enactments, namely—

(a) section II of the Crown of Ireland Act 1542 (occasioning disturbance etc. to the crown of Ireland punishable as high treason);

(b) section XII of the Act of Supremacy (Ireland) 1560 (penalties for maintaining or defending foreign authority);

(c) section 3 of the Treason Act 1702 (endeavouring to hinder the succession to the Crown etc. punishable as high treason);

(d) section I of the Treason Act (Ireland) 1703 (which makes corresponding provision),

for the words "suffer pains of death- there shall be substituted the words "he liable to imprisonment for life".
(A3) The following enactments shall cease to have effect, namely—

(a) the Treason Act 1790;

(b) the Treason Act 1795.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, we come now to the matters to which the noble Lord, Lord Henley, referred a moment ago. As your Lordships will remember, I undertook to do any further necessary work consequent on the overwhelming adoption by your Lordships of the amendments put forward in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell. There are a number of amendments in this group, which I may perhaps summarise briefly by way of explanation.
The Treason Act (Ireland) 1537, Crown of Ireland Act 1542, Act of Supremacy (Ireland) 1560, Treason Act 1702 and Treason Act (Ireland) 1703 all need to be amended to insert a maximum penalty of life imprisonment because they provide for the death penalty

209
for treason-like offences. Clause 103 is to be amended to provide for the extension of these provisions to Northern Ireland and Scotland.
The repeal of the Treason Act 1817 and Section 2 of the Treason Felony Act 1848 are consequential to the repeal of the Treason Act 1795 in Clause 30. The Treason Act 1790 and Treason by Women Act 1796 are repealed because they do no more than provide for the death penalty for women convicted of treason. The Sentence of Death (Expectant Mothers) Act 1931 and Sections 32 and 33 of the Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 1945 which provide that pregnant women may be imprisoned for life rather than executed are repealed because the death penalty will no longer be available.
I hope that that brief summary of the researches nobly carried out by the officials will be of assistance. I beg to move.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, this is the most glorious piece of information one could possibly come across. It has been worth waiting 30 years in your Lordships' House to know that slandering the sovereign in Ireland is still a hanging offence. When was anybody last prosecuted under the Treason Act (Ireland) 1537, the Crown of Ireland Act 1542—introduced, incidentally, by King Henry VIII, who probably had about as much control over the House of Commons as does the present First Lord of the Treasury—or the Act of Supremacy (Ireland) 1560? Surely we should not have Acts of Parliament on the statute book which are never used and which contain vast and draconian penalties? It is fun to laugh at them, but it is a serious matter to have Acts on the statute book with this level of punishment which no one in their right mind would dream of using.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I wholly agree with the noble Earl, Lord Onslow. I cannot answer his question; I can only say that this exercise was precisely in order to remove from the statute book Acts with draconian penalties which were never used. What he said we should be doing, we have done, at least in this regard.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, we have left in life imprisonment.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I see. The noble Earl wants to take me further than I was prepared to go, because I prefer to go one step at a time. I do not believe there is anything between us. It may be that he and I can hatch a plot together to implement his suggestion.
I wish to thank my noble friend Lord Williams for perfecting that which was already good. I should place on record his generous help throughout this exercise in enabling your Lordships to take an effective decision. I would not seek to improve either on his draft or on what he said in introducing it. He stationed the Government firmly on the side of the angels, and I am
210
most grateful. I add only that I apologise for the deficiencies in my own research which made some of his researches necessary.
Lord Renton: My Lords, for the sake of clarity, may I say that I too welcome these amendments. I believe it is right to point out that the law of treason is not only ancient and confusing but contains a certain amount of nonsense as well. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, has eliminated not all but a great deal of that nonsense. I am fully in favour of abolishing the death penalty for acts of treason in time of peace; but, as I shall say when we come to Amendment No. 30, for two serious reasons I believe it should be retained in time of war.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister can help me with regard to which of these Acts relate to Scotland. It has been widely trailed that in the Scotland Bill one of the matters to be devolved to the Scottish parliament will be the death penalty. At the same time, we know that treason will not be devolved but will be a reserved subject. Since the Scottish parliament could presumably have dealt with the death penalty for piracy if devolution had already taken place, I wonder whether, if these amendments are accepted, it will be possible to devolve the death sentence to the Scottish parliament.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, perhaps I might invite the Minister to consider whether there needs to be a redefinition of treason. That exercise is currently taking place in Hong Kong. The Provisional Legislative Council has wisely not grasped that nettle but it is a matter outstanding under the basic law and one which will shortly be addressed by the elected legislative council which will come into being after 4th May. As your Lordships can well understand, there are considerable difficulties in Hong Kong in defining what treason is, having regard to the handover of sovereignty to the People's Republic of China. There are people in Hong Kong who are concerned about what treason is in today's terms. I invite the Minister not to stop at this point but to bring forward a modern, up-to-date definition of treason.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, is an interesting one. We shall take note of it and consider it.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, before my noble friend leaves that point, he may recollect that in 1977 the Law Commission published a working paper on reform of the law of treason. I wonder whether it will be possible to invite them to take up this work again? I think a great deal of the work may already have been done.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, as always, I am most grateful for the helpful suggestion put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, and will similarly consider that.

211
In respect of the questions asked by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, I anticipated that he might ask them and I am able to say with total authority that by Amendment No. 81 the 1790 and 1795 Acts are repealed in Scotland. The 1814 and 1837 Acts, as amended by Clause 30, do extend to Scotland. Happily, I am able to tell your Lordships that I shall have no part in the impending consideration in your Lordships' House of the Government of Scotland Bill; I intend to have a day off. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will be more than happy to correspond vigorously and energetically with the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, on that matter.
I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, who is, as always, generous.
In respect of what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, it is almost as though the whole of my life has been a preparation for this moment. To have been able to make him happy, after 30 years in your Lordships' House, is a pleasure indeed and a treat that falls to very few. What I would suggest, in the spirit of amity which always informs our discussions across the Floor of your Lordships' House, is that he should not go precipitately for any further reforms because he is bound to have a significant second income by winning questions at Trivial Pursuit. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
7 p.m.
Lord Rentonmoved Amendment No. 12:
Page 24, line 5, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
("(1) When high treason is committed in time of war by any citizen of, or person resident in, the United Kingdom against Her Majesty by assaulting or threatening to assault her, or by giving aid to the enemy in the realm or elsewhere, the sentence for such high treason shall be that laid down in Section 1 of the Treason Act 1814 (form of sentence in case of high treason), namely that "such person shall be hanged by the neck until such person be dead".
(1A) Any person found guilty of high treason in circumstances other than those set out in subsection (1) shall he liable to imprisonment for life.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to provide an alternative to subsection (1) of Clause 30 as it stands. The effect of the amendment would be to retain the death penalty in time of war—I stress "only in time of war"—for two particular types of high treason. The first is assault or attempted assault upon the Queen or whoever is the reigning monarch. The other is aiding the enemy.
At the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, from the Liberal Democrat Benches said that he would retain the death penalty for acts of treason in time of war. At the Report stage the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, for whom I have always had a very high regard both as a parliamentarian and as a colleague at the Bar, in moving what is now Clause 30, said:
"What it seeks to do"—
that is, his new clause, which is now Clause 30—
"is to remove finally from the statute hook the last remnants of capital punishment in time of peace, that is, for certain types of piracy and treason".—[Official Report, 19/3/98; col. 841.]
212
However, subsection (1) as it stands abolishes capital punishment for any high treason, in time of war as well as in peacetime. As I said just now on the other amendment, I, like most other noble Lords, wish to get rid of the death penalty in peacetime for every offence. Now I must mention that in a conversation I had with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, this afternoon—he agreed that I should mention it—he told me that he did not intend that the death penalty should be retained even in time of war. However, I suggest that, technically speaking, subsection (1) as it stands does not fulfil the purpose which he had in mind. That is one reason why I have put forward Amendment No. 12 to replace subsection (1) of Clause 30.
However, my main reason for moving the amendment is that when members of our Armed Forces in time of war are sacrificing their lives it would be disgraceful if anyone in this country who assassinated the Queen, or perhaps her successor, or who aided the enemy, perhaps by giving vital information which reveals, for example, a necessary code used by the Armed Forces and on which so much can depend, or by blowing up a factory in this country where armaments are made, were merely sent to prison. That would not be enough to protect our sovereign and to protect our country. Anyone who behaves so treacherously when the future of our nation may be at stake and when our soldiers, sailors and airmen are risking their lives deserves to die. Furthermore, I suggest that they should be deterred. In most cases the death penalty would be a deterrent. I agree that there are cases where people are not deterred by the death penalty. That is common knowledge and stands to reason.
I must confess that the drafting of my amendment has been difficult. It has been difficult because of the confusion in the ancient law. I have had to use phrases which not only achieve the purpose I had in mind but which dovetail with the ancient statutes. Perhaps I may refer to my amendment. The phrase "in time of war" does not mean historically that war has had to be declared. Indeed in many of the wars of our history, including the recent war in the Falklands and the Gulf War, I understand, although I did not know about it until my noble friend mentioned it to me this morning, we made no declaration of war. But there was a war and we were involved.
We then come to the words,
"any citizen of, or person resident in, the United Kingdom".
It would be absurd if a citizen of the United Kingdom could be convicted of treason in these circumstances but someone we had allowed to settle here—perhaps as a refugee—who had turned treacherously against us got off scot-free.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for giving way. There is a judgment by Lord Justice Coke in the early 17th century which assumes that the moment someone comes to this country he owes a duty of loyalty to the Crown and is therefore capable of committing high treason; and people have been executed. That is set out in an Answer given

213
several years ago to a Question I raised on treason with the then Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham.
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps I may express my gratitude to my noble friend, a layman. He has reminded me of something which I learnt years ago but had not remembered. I am grateful to him. He has strengthened my argument.
I should mention the words,
"assaulting or threatening to assault",
Her Majesty. I confess that those are my words. They are my simple attempt in modern English to summarise the vast amount of verbiage that there is when the previous treason Acts have referred to acts against the person of the sovereign. "Assaulting or threatening to assault" is a fair way of putting it. If the attempt were a trivial matter the sovereign would have the power to grant mercy, so no problem would arise with that. However, a really serious attempt should carry the death penalty.
I should mention subsection (1A), because there I have come to express in effect what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, really intended by the present subsection (1), which goes much further. I shall attempt to answer any questions on the drafting when I reply to the debate.
In conclusion, I share the widely held view that the use of the death penalty in peacetime in civilised countries today is undesirable but I hope that noble Lords will agree with me that the need to protect our sovereign and our country in time of war is paramount. I beg to move.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who, with his customary courtesy, pointed out to me yesterday that he had set down this amendment and he very kindly discussed it with me. The words which he attributed to me at Report stage are accurately reported. I did say that the purpose was,
"to remove finally from the statute hook the last remnants of capital punishment in time of peace".—[Official Report, 19/3/98; col. 841.]
The reason for that was because it does not purport to remove the last remnants of capital punishment in time of war. As I believe I explained at Report stage, we have limited the amendment by excluding from it offences against military law in time of war. If I remember accurately, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, was delayed in coming into the Chamber in that debate. I believe that he missed what I said so that may be the explanation. What your Lordships approved of was precisely what I had intended.
I excluded offences against military law not because I believe that our country is any safer for shooting soldiers for cowardice, but for two quite different reasons. First, because this is a Bill about civil law: and, secondly, because I accept that the arguments are different. I wanted to keep the debate as simple as possible. For those reasons my intention was to exempt offences against military law in time of war, and I said that we were not removing the last remnants except in
214
time of peace. In fact, as I understand it, it is now reported that the authorities are considering whether the death penalty should be retained even for offences against military law, but that is not a matter with which we are concerned today.
I also said at Report stage that I thought that we could dispense with the death penalty for civilians even in time of war because I do not believe that that is how civilians are best motivated. I say at once that if I believed that Her Majesty's personal safety depended on retaining the Treason Act 1814 in its present form, together with the death penalty, I would certainly reconsider. But I do not believe that anyone who offered violence to Her Majesty today would be prosecuted for treason; there are better provisions on the statute book. Neither do I believe that we are best protected against spies and saboteurs by the fear of hanging. When arson in Royal dockyards was abolished as an offence, followed by capital punishment, in 1977, and almost unnoticed, there was no epidemic of incendiarism in dockyards.
I proposed, and your Lordships agreed, to clear the statute book of something which the noble Earl and I agree was a relic of a darker age, if only so that when my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary speaks on our behalf to other countries in favour of civilised behaviour, he will do so with greater authority because this country will no longer be open to the reply, "But on your own statute book you have retained hanging". I wonder what history would say of us if in 1998 we almost abolished the death penalty, which for these offences has not been used for 50 years, but we did not quite do so.
I do not propose to develop further the differences between the noble Lord and myself. Some noble Lords may wish to do that. I believe that they are well known. Noble Lords will make up their own minds. I hold the noble Lord, Lord Renton, in as high regard as he very kindly said that he holds me. On this occasion I have the misfortune to differ from him.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, there are many reasons for wanting to see the end of the death penalty. One of them is that if a person is wrongly convicted there is nothing that can be done about it. I believe that has been one of the motivations for the abolition of the death penalty in this country and which has persuaded many people that it is a barbaric institution which must go.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, has done great service, as he always does, in bringing forward this amendment. I deeply appreciate the strong feelings that are held by those who took an active part during wartime and saw events at first hand. The difficulty with drafting lends weight to the point that I was making earlier that treason should be looked at again. It also highlights a particular issue.
It is curious that on the definition of high treason in the noble Lord's amendment, the last person to be hanged in this country for that crime—namely, William Joyce—would not have been guilty of that offence. The

215
curious thing about his case is that he was born in America; that he came to this country, pretended that he had been born in Galway, which was then part of the United Kingdom, and then obtained a British passport. His offences of giving aid to the enemy did not occur in this country. He did not spy in this country. The aid that he gave to the enemy was in Germany through the broadcasts he made during the war. Therefore, he was not a citizen of the United Kingdom nor was he resident here. He was not giving aid to the enemy in the realm. He was certainly giving it elsewhere, but not within the realm itself. William Joyce would not have been caught by this provision.
Your Lordships will remember that it was a case that eventually went to appeal to the Judicial Committee of your Lordships' House. The case gave rise to great controversy at the time. Had the trial not been held in the immediate aftermath of war when no doubt emotions were greatly involved, it is very likely that the decision could have gone a different way. It seems curious that a person is guilty of high treason simply because he has fraudulently obtained a British passport. It is with great regret that I must oppose this amendment.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I shall speak very briefly in support of my noble friend Lord Renton. I do not expect for one moment that my oratory will carry the day, but I am sure that I am not alone in feeling very strongly about these matters. In time of war people are expected to die for their country. In World War II people who had no wish at all to serve in the Armed Forces were required to do so and were expected to die for their country. In such a war traitors can make it more likely that those soldiers, sailors and airmen serving in the Armed Forces, but not wishing to serve and doing their duty to their country, suffer the ultimate penalty and die.
It is quite wrong that such traitors should be treated more favourably than those members of the Armed Forces, the lives of whom traitors are prepared to see snuffed out. If another war were to occur in the course of which a traitor was arrested, tried, convicted and then merely sentenced to imprisonment, the situation would be treated with disdain and contempt by the members of our Armed Forces who at that time were risking death every day during which they continued to serve their country. It is an understatement—it is almost absurd—to say that that would be damaging to morale.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, said that the death penalty is not the best way to protect a country against spies and saboteurs. I am not suggesting for one moment that this amendment ought to be carried in order to give the necessary protection against spies and saboteurs. I am saying that it is a case of simple justice and common sense that in wartime, when people are facing death every day, they should know that if somebody commits acts which makes death more likely for them, that person will suffer the ultimate penalty himself.
Although I listened with great attention to the interesting speech of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and to his argument that William Joyce would
216
not suffer the death penalty if he were to act now as he did at that time, I must point out that it is not only people in the situation of William Joyce who do, and can, commit treason in time of war. With the greatest respect, I do not think that the noble Lord's argument impinged on this argument. I feel in my bones that it is not right in time of war to treat a traitor better than the soldiers whose lives he has imperilled.
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, I rise to oppose the amendment and to support the arguments which have been so eloquently made by my noble and learned friend Lord Archer and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. The national campaign for the abolition of capital punishment was the first national campaign in which I participated. I was a young undergraduate then and I do not regret participating in it for a moment. Either you are in favour of capital punishment or you are against it. I do not believe that you can be for it in some instances and against it in others. In my book, you are either for it or against it—and I am against it.
I should like to make one point about deterrence in relation to this clause. I recall reading that during the war a number of spies and saboteurs who were captured were offered the choice of either becoming spies for our side—that is, double agents—or being hanged. It is surprising how many (for reasons which only they can know) preferred to die rather than to change sides. That seems to indicate that the death penalty does not have quite the deterrence that is sometimes imputed to it.
I should like to refer to a point that was made by the noble Lords, Lord Renton and Lord Waddington, that it is simply unfair to fighting troops that they should die and that people who may be jeopardising their lives should be spared. That is a rather extreme argument. Soldiers die for many reasons, not least because there may be a failure of equipment or poor command. Soldiers die for many reasons other than the fact of being killed by the enemy. I find that a weak argument.
The greatest argument that I can marshal against the amendment—I declare an interest as a delegate to the Council of Europe—is that I find it very difficult as a British delegate at the Council of Europe to have to admit that we have not yet removed capital punishment from the statutes. It is high time that we did. Barring the fact that we still have the proviso at the moment for the retention of capital punishment under military law, I believe that in relation to civilian law it is high time that we got rid of the provision once and for all and completely.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I cannot agree that either one is in favour of capital punishment or one is against it. It is possible to be against it for the most part but in favour of it in rare instances. I had not intended to intervene, but surely the prospect of a long term of imprisonment is no deterrent to a civilian spy or saboteur in time of war because, even if he is caught, he will be expecting the enemy to win, upon which he will expect to be released and even rewarded. It is for that reason that I support the amendment.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, the issue before the House is whether it makes a crucial

217
difference to the penalty of death if the crime is committed in time of peace or in time of war. Speaking for myself, I do not understand any principled basis on which we can make that distinction as law-makers.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, for whom I have the same affection as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, and the same respect, suggested that there were two tests. One is whether someone deserves to die and the other is whether the penalty will be a deterrent. If we are considering who deserves to die, most of us might think, leaving aside our objections to the death penalty, that George Blake, the traitor who was responsible for the deaths of 42 members of our secret service and got 42 years' imprisonment, deserved to die for that offence in peacetime. Most of us might think that those who murdered Airey Neave, MP—an act of cowardly terrorist murder—deserved to die. That was an act committed in peacetime. If we are talking about those who deserve to die, most of us might think that those who commit the crime of genocide, wiping out a whole people because of their racial origins, deserve to die. All of those offences committed in peacetime are subject to mandatory life imprisonment. Parliament enacted the Genocide Act in 1969 providing that as a penalty.
I happen to be against the death penalty on principle, like the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, and others who have spoken. However, whether one is or is not against it in principle, we would have to have a sensible, rational basis for preserving the death penalty for any offences. I suggest that the vague offence of,
"giving aid to the enemy",
would not be a sufficient basis for distinguishing an offence punishable by capital punishment by hanging,
"by the neck until … dead",
from the other heinous crimes to which I have referred. Therefore, I am strongly opposed to the amendment which I think would disfigure the statute book. I am in favour of what is happening across the Council of Europe from Ireland in the West to Turkey in the East, which is wiping out the death penalty.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, it is awfully difficult to argue against my noble friend Lord Renton, who has been a real and genuine friend for a very long time. I come from a family who had, for want of a better phrase, "good wars" in both World War I and World War II. My grandfather walked round Eaton Square with Leo Amery on the night that John Amery was hanged. John Foster was a friend of my parents-in-law. He was the solicitor who defended Joyce.
I oppose the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Renton because I think that this decision ought to be made not, funnily enough, by those who knew the war, who remember it, who were deeply scarred by it, who fought in it, who risked their lives so that we can continue to bang on here, and who fought for our freedom, but by those who stood back and can take a judgment which is perhaps much more detached.
I end with another little family story. I had a forebear who was shooting partridges in Oxfordshire. Across the field came some drunken Irish agricultural labourers.
218
My forebear said, "Where have you been"? They said, "We have been to the hanging". He said, "Good God, I've got the man's reprieve in my pocket". I see that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, is laughing. That happened in 1840, so one is entitled to a small grin now. However, as the noble Lord on the Liberal Benches said, such an error is something with which our consciences cannot be allowed to live. Therefore, with very much regret, I must oppose my noble friend's amendment.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, in speaking from this Dispatch Box, I remind the House that on these Benches and, I imagine, in all parts of the House, this is a matter best left to our consciences without the guidance of the Whips. In other words, this is a matter on which there should be a free vote. I also make clear, as I did at Report stage when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, last moved his amendment, that I am opposed to all forms of capital punishment. They are impractical and increase the difficulty of obtaining convictions when one makes use of trial by jury and they are inhumane in a civilised society.
Nevertheless, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, in moving his amendment on that occasion made it clear that he was doing so to remove the last vestiges of capital punishment in time of peace. It is right therefore that my noble friend Lord Renton should table his amendment on this occasion to allow the House an opportunity to put the case for retaining capital punishment in certain circumstances.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I thought that I had already explained and made perfectly clear at Report stage that I wished to abolish capital punishment for treason in time of peace or war. It was offences against military law in time of war that I excepted.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I entirely accept what the noble and learned Lord has said and I have no quibble with it. I believe that it is right for my noble friend to table this amendment because the understanding of many noble Lords was that the noble and learned Lord was trying to remove capital punishment in time of peace. As a result of this debate—it is unnecessary for the noble and learned Lord, dare I say it, to intervene—the noble and learned Lord has quite rightly made it clear to the House exactly what he means. That was not quite as clear at Report stage. Many noble Lords were left with the impression that he was simply trying to remove it in all cases in time of peace. There is no need for the noble and learned Lord to intervene.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene. At the risk of being tiresome, I said expressly virtually in words of one syllable—and certainly in the English language—that I proposed to abolish capital punishment for treason whether in time of peace or war. What was ambiguous about that?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I must look carefully at what the noble and learned Lord said. However, some

219
noble Lords remained under a misapprehension. We have devoted 31 minutes to this subject, which is quite a long time in what is a fairly busy Third Reading. I believe that it is perfectly legitimate for my noble friend to bring this matter back on this occasion. We have had a useful discussion on it which has clarified some points. What my noble friend does with his amendment is a matter for him and him alone.
I believe that I have made clear my personal views on capital punishment. I believe that it is right, fair and proper to debate this amendment, but that does not imply any form of criticism of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer. If anything, it is probably a criticism of myself if I misunderstood the position on that occasion. I shall look carefully at the precise words used by the noble and learned Lord. However, some noble Lords understood the noble and learned Lord as I did.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, when the amendment of my noble and learned friend Lord Archer was carried he made it plain that he wanted to abolish the death penalty for treason and piracy with violence. It made no provision for offences committed in times of war, and that is what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, addresses here. Certainly, the international conventions allow for the death penalty in times of war. As far as I could detect there was virtual unanimity on the last occasion when my noble and learned friend Lord Archer moved his amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, is quite right: it is a matter for individual conscience. If this is put to the vote I shall vote against it.
It may be of interest that the Treachery Act 1940 was passed specifically to provide the death penalty for treacherous acts committed during the Second World War, but it applied only to that period of emergency. It is possible that similar legislation may be sought in future. I would not vote for it, but I simply put that as an alternative that may satisfy the troubles that have been expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Renton and Lord Waddington. The current Armed Forces legislation allows for the death penalty in certain circumstances. That is presently under review, but it would not be appropriate for me to comment further on that.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am grateful to all who have spoken in this debate. This is a very important matter. In the sense that we should be changing our opinion as to what needs to be done to protect our sovereign and country it is a turning point in our history.
I am quite old but I shall not be 90 until August. I have lived through both world wars. My father served in the Army as a surgeon in the First World War from August 1914. I served as a territorial throughout the Second World War. When I was at Oxford in the late 1920s the talk was that another war would be unthinkable. There was a good deal of talk about disarmament not only in this country but elsewhere. In the Oxford Union in 1932 a majority voted in favour of declining to serve their King and country. Very soon after that Hitler came to power.
Fifty-three years have elapsed since the end of the Second World War. Admittedly, we have had some very tragic wars in between but they have not been on the
220
same scale. I am concerned about the complacency that has recurred in the past few years in this country. It was there in the 1920s and the early 1930s between the First and Second World Wars. That is not my only motive. I felt that it was right to air this matter.
I should like to comment on just one or two of the contributions to the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, made the powerful point that sometimes miscarriages of justice occurred. But we have a very thorough method of appeal in this country. I do not believe that anyone in this century who has been convicted of treason—there have been only a few such cases—has suffered a miscarriage of justice. No one can say that. As for William Joyce, he was the last of those to be hanged for treason but he was not the only one, as has been said by my noble friend Lord Onslow. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Waddington. He put the point clearly and forcefully.
I was a little surprised by the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, for whom all noble Lords have respect, about attitudes during and since the last war. It was a terrible war and it was the longest in what could be termed modern history. There was great loss of life all over the world. There was a determination everywhere except in the Soviet Union to try to attain peace. Now the Soviet Union has broken up through the resistance of the United States and ourselves. Let us never be complacent. One does not go as far as the Romans, who said that if one wanted peace one should prepare for war. I think that that may be going too far even today. However, we should be vigilant and prepared.
One could go on and attempt to answer the various points that have been made. I hope that noble Lords accept that this debate has been useful and that their views on this vital matter should be aired. I should like to test the opinion of the House.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Lord Williams of Mostynmoved Amendments Nos. 13 and 14:
Page 24, line 9, leave out subsections (2) and (3).
Page 24, line 16, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
("(5) The following enactments shall cease to have effect, namely—

(a) the Sentence of Death (Expectant Mothers) Act 1931; and

(b) sections 32 and 33 of the Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 1945 (which make corresponding provision).").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton moved Amendment No. 16:
After Clause 30, insert the following new clause—
INTERCOURSE WITH GIRL UNDER 16
(". In paragraph 10 of Schedule 2 to the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (penalty for offence committed under section 6 (intercourse with girl under sixteen)), for the words "Two years", in both places in which they occur, substitute "Four years, or to a fine, or to both".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to these amendments at what seems a long time ago. I invite those noble Lords who wish to express their views to do so now. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 17 and 79 which I have tabled are grouped with the English amendments of similar hue. If we are to have an age limit designed to protect young girls, that age limit should be well marked out as one which can be punished by a substantial period of imprisonment.
This measure is aimed at two groups: first, it draws the matter to the attention of those individuals who do not believe that the legal age of consent matters; and, secondly, to those who are contemplating the commission of a second or repeat offence.
I presume that the current maximum of two years is given out only to mature adults and not to 16 year-old boys offending with compliant 15 year-old girls, or vice versa, and that that practice will continue. There is of course a case for not imprisoning offenders whose sustained relationship has led to the birth of a child. The conflict of interests between punishing the parent and keeping the embryonic family together has somewhat crystallised this part of the debate. However, the amendment would be a useful one to the Scottish criminal law.
Lord Meston: My Lords, my name is to these amendments. On Report we had a debate which suggested that, whether or not the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, were acceptable in any form, the whole problem of child prostitution now requires fuller and wider scrutiny. I understood from the Minister's reply on Report that the Government are looking at that matter.
It was common ground that there are children who are especially vulnerable: those who run away from home and those who are in care. The Minister suggested that there was a serious risk that, if the noble Lord's amendments were carried at that stage, there would be an increase in child prostitution.
It was suggested that, whereas at present some men are deterred by the existing illegality of intercourse with a child under 16, they and others would take advantage of the removal of the criminal deterrent operating against a child. The main concern, which I believe all noble Lords shared and still share, is that the user and exploiter of child prostitutes should be punished, and that, wherever possible, the child concerned should be protected rather than penalised.
The Children Act machinery is already there. As the Children's Society has said in a valuable briefing, the provisions of the Children Act are a good reason for changing the law, and for looking again at the way in which, perhaps unfortunately, there is this link between consideration of the age of consent for sexual intercourse and the wider issuer of child prostitution. If nothing else, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, despite the procedural difficulties which he has undoubtedly experienced, will continue the debate beyond the Bill's ambit.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I was especially grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for raising this subject. When we last discussed the matter there were difficulties, which I pointed out to your Lordships, which the noble Lord may well have accepted, in the form of his then amendments.
The only amendments that fall to be considered now—unless I have misunderstood the noble Lord's position—are his Amendment No. 16 and the parallel proposal from the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, relating to jurisdiction in Scotland. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, I should say that I said to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, in last week's debate, that we will be issuing new guidance which will draw on the outcome of consultation. The Department of Health has issued a consultation paper entitled Working Together to Safeguard Children; New Government Proposals for inter-agency Co-operation.
There will be new guidelines about how to deal with young girls who have been drawn into prostitution. The guidance—I hope that this will be of some comfort to the noble Lord, Lord Meston—will be joint Home Office/Department of Health guidance—I believe that to be important—for the police and social service departments. We hope and aim to publish that guidance in the autumn.
On the particular proposals, I am sympathetic to the amendments because, in effect, they double the term of imprisonment from two years to four years. We have to ensure that we have a penalty framework for sexual offences which is as coherent as we can make it. There are undoubtedly some existing anomalies. We believe that the proposals would create even more anomalies. We should consider penalties for other comparable offences to ensure that relative gravity is properly reflected.
We need to look at other consensual sexual offences such as sexual intercourse with boys under the age of consent. We do not want to increase this penalty in isolation. At a very late stage in the Bill's passage—this is not a reproach—it is difficult to look at all the complex interrelating offences. We should look at the matter in the round rather than merely wishing to send a signal—the signal that we all want to send—which is not the way to do it. On the basis of that explanation of the Government's position, and, in particular, the fuller news upon the guidelines that I was able to give, I hope that on this occasion the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, and the noble Lord, Lord Meston, for what they have just said. I thank the Minister for his letter to me of 29th March, for his Written Answer of yesterday, and for what he has just said about future guidance to professionals about the great need for inter-agency co-operation.
It seems to me that enough has been said on Report and today to alert both Houses of Parliament and the wider public to the serious evils of child prostitution in England and Wales, and, I think I can confidently say, in Scotland also.

223
The problems connected with child prostitution often start with suspension or exclusion from school, as I tried to indicate in a letter to The Times which was published soon after the Bill's Second Reading. Family violence, family break-up, remarriage and bullying of all kinds, all contribute to running away from home or other places, which often ends in prostitution. The taking into care of children, alas, does not always solve the problems that it seeks to address.
There is need for more sensitivity and listening and for better inter-agency and inter-professional team work. Relationships of trust are needed to prevent juvenile crime. I commend to your Lordships and to Her Majesty's Government the conclusions of the 1996 Stockholm Conference (World Congress against the Sexual Exploitation of Children) together with recent publications by the Children's Society and Barnardos, particularly Child Prostitution in Britain, edited by David Barrett.
I do not believe that it can be left to voluntary organisations alone to meet all the needs which are not covered by the provisions made by central and local government. An existing network is available to prevent and cope with child prostitution; namely, the area child protection committees which cover the whole country. Will the Government give them new and wider guidelines and greater resources in those places where child prostitution is most concentrated? Will they strengthen those groups set up by the Association of Chief Police Officers, which include the Department of Health, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Home Office? Will they ask that group to report as a matter of urgency?
At this time of day and in this situation, I do not intend to press the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
Clause 35 [The Youth Justice Board]:
Lord Williams of Mostynmoved Amendment No. 18:
Page 27, line 20, at end insert ("following matters, namely—(i) the").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer indicated on 19th March, responding to an amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, that the Government wish to broaden the functions of the youth justice board established under Clause 35 in identifying and promoting good practice and commissioning research.
As currently drafted, subsections (5)(f), (g) and (h) of Clause 35 enable the board to identify and promote good practice in the operation of the youth justice system and the provision of youth justice services; to make grants to local authorities and other bodies to develop, or commission research into, good practice in working with young offenders; and itself to commission such research.
224
Amendments Nos. 18, 19 and 20 will extend these provisions to enable the board to identify and promote, and make grants and commission research in respect of, good practice in the operation of the youth justice system and the provision of youth justice services; preventing offending by children and young people; and working with children and young people who are, or are at risk of becoming, offenders. This will give the board a broad scope to identify and support good practice in the youth justice field and thereby raise standards in work to prevent and address youth offending. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I am pleased to see this group of amendments. I must thank my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford for drafting Amendment No. 19. It is better than my solution, which was to reprint all 16 pages of Part III of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. Another rainforest has been saved. The amendments do not quite implement the children's panel in England, but I am pleased that some aspects may be incorporated because research into the Scottish system is allowed.
I wish to pose two questions, although I know that they cannot be answered today because we must watch what happens after the enactment of the Bill. Fast tracking is an intention of the Bill as regards youth justice. Is it possible to have a fast track without by-passing the due process? I continue to cite the children's panel as a system able to by-pass that.
As regards paragraph (g), can a local authority study the children's panel system and implement it? I realise that that question cannot yet be answered, but it will be interesting to see how many varieties of the youth justice system evolve.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostynmoved Amendments Nos. 19 and 20:
Page 27, line 22, at end insert—

("(ii) the prevention of offending by children and young persons; and

(iii) working with children and young persons who are or are at risk of becoming offenders;").

Page 27, line 24, leave out from ("develop") to second ("and") in line 26 and insert ("such practice, or to commission research in connection with such practice;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 37 [Time limits]:
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 21:
Page 28, line 43, after ("magistrate") insert—
(ii) a postponement which is occasioned by the ordering by the court of separate trials in the case of two or more accused or two or more offences;").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is an amendment to Clause 37 which makes provision in relation to time limits. We believe that time limits can serve as a effective reinforcement of the new improved case management measures which we are also

225
introducing in this Bill. We plan to introduce the new regime of time limits, after piloting, once those new procedures are in place.
One of the essential changes we are making to the existing regime is to tighten the court's discretion to grant extensions to time limits. The existing provisions in the 1985 Act allow the court a wide discretion in deciding whether to extend time limits. We know from the operation of existing custody time limits that extensions are not infrequently granted.
We believe that the criteria for extension need to be made more prescriptive for the new time limits regime to have any teeth. That is why Clause 37 as it stands prevents the court from granting an extension unless it is satisfied that the cause of any delay is due to illness or absence of the accused, a necessary witness or a magistrate or judge, or to some similar situation covered by the interpretation of "good and sufficient cause", and that the prosecution has acted with all due diligence as well as expedition.
However, this amendment introduces an additional specific reason which we consider might legitimately justify an extension to a time limit, and that is the court's ordering of separate trials for a single defendant charged with more than one offence or for co-defendants jointly charged. The discretionary power to order separate trials is exercised where, for example, the court considers that defendants may be prejudiced or embarrassed in their defence as a result of a single trial. Without the proposed amendment, where the court orders separate trials, there is a risk that the time limit might expire before the later trial. The effect of that would be that the proceedings would be stayed or, if the defendant were in custody, he would be released on bail. The ordering of separate trials is an issue over which the prosecution has no control and it is only right that the proceedings should not be stayed or the defendant released if a trial were postponed for that reason.
We believe that, with the inclusion of this amendment, the new provisions for extending time limits strike the proper balance between tightening up the existing criteria to ensure that time limits genuinely bite, and allowing the courts the necessary flexibility to allow more time. No extension to time limits should be granted unless the court is satisfied that the need for an extension is due to one of the specified reasons, or to a similar situation, or to a real difficulty which is not the result of any inefficiencies of practitioners or of the courts themselves. This is an important point. There may be good and sufficient reasons other than those specified on the face of the Bill for granting extensions in individual cases. For example, any court which did not allow more time at the proper request of the defence, where any delay was not due to time wasting or inefficiency, would be liable to be in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. But we want courts to take a tough line on adjournments, and we do not expect the stringency of the new time limits regime to be eroded by routine granting of adjournments at the request of either of the parties. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 43 [Powers of magistrates' courts exercisable by single justice etc.]:
Lord Williams of Mostynmoved Amendment No. 22:
Page 33, line 37, leave out ("the probation service").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when on Report we debated what is now Clause 43, I promised to bring forward amendments to deal with many of the points which had caused concern. I was grateful to have had useful conversations with the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, with the Lord Chief Justice by letter and with the Magistrates' Association and the Justices' Clerks' Society. Because of those conversations, and because we promised to look carefully at these matters and to take into account real concerns, we have brought forward these amendments. The most significant is that which adds new subsection (2A) to Clause 43.
It limits the powers which are capable of being made available to justices' clerks. Clerks will have no power to remand a defendant in custody, and will have the power to remand on bail only on the same conditions as those previously imposed, unless the prosecution and the accused consent to their being varied or to new ones being imposed. The same restrictions apply to the power to remand defendants at an early administrative hearing, which now appears in Clause 44. The result is that there are no circumstances in which a clerk will be able to remand a defendant in custody.
The other restrictions on Clause 43 powers are that a clerk cannot impose reporting restrictions; he may make orders for separate or joint trials only with the consent of all the parties; and while he may request a pre-sentence report, he cannot give an indication of seriousness. Those latter matters were raised in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, whose presence I was looking for and have now discovered to my surprise, because I was going to make those remarks in his absence.
In the debate on Report the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, wondered whether the effect of this would be that pre-sentence reports would be ordered almost as a matter of course, with unfortunate implications for resources. I see no reason to fear such an outcome, since clerks should be as well able as magistrates to assess whether a PSR is likely to be required. The other amendments are drafting improvements only.
I hope that noble Lords who expressed concern about those matters will feel that we have reasonably met those concerns. It may be that Amendment No. 25 will no longer prove necessary, although it was a useful spur to action. I beg to move.
8 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing forward these amendments. They meet many, if not all, of the concerns that I have expressed throughout our debates on the Bill.
I was very grateful to the Minister for agreeing to my request for a meeting between Committee and Report

227
stages, a meeting at which the Magistrates' Association, the Justices' Clerks' Society, the noble Baroness, Lady David, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and I were able to discuss Clause 43 with the Minister and his officials. We all thoroughly appreciated that opportunity. I am sure that the Minister was left in no doubt as to the strength of our views. Those views were expressed throughout in a non-party, non-partisan manner.
I am grateful also for all the efforts made on behalf of those who had concerns about the clause. I am grateful for the work done by my noble friend Lord Kingsland and by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice.
I welcomed the Minister's statement on Report that he would bring forward amendments at Third Reading to make clear the extent of the powers which clerks would be capable of exercising, subject to rules. I recognise that the undertakings that he gave on Report are met within the amendments that he is moving today.
However, I place it on record that I have never called into question throughout these debates the competence of experienced justices' clerks to perform all the functions listed in Clause 43. I have simply questioned whether it is appropriate for them to do so. There has been a general principle underlying my anxieties about Clause 43. It is simply that the lay magistracy performs valuable judicial functions which should not in themselves be devolved to justices' clerks. In particular, I had in mind the granting of bail and the ordering of pre-sentence reports, by which the clerk is involved in giving the Probation Service an indication of the seriousness of the offence and thereby involved in the sentencing process.
I certainly welcome now the changes that the Government have introduced, whereby they have restricted some of the bail-granting powers which were to be devolved and have removed from the ordering of the pre-sentence report the requirement that the clerk should give an indication of the seriousness of the offence. That was most welcome.
The Minister made reference to a worry which I voiced on Report; namely, that the ordering of the PSR would become merely mechanical and automatic. I perhaps did not explain sufficiently effectively on Report my real concern in that regard. It is that, when a clerk now orders a report without giving an indication of the seriousness of the offence, it means that on each and every occasion when the clerk makes such an order, the Probation Service will be required to make an all-options report; and that must be assessed individually as against every single available sentencing option.
I have been reminded by the Magistrates' Association that that could work counter to the efforts it has been making with the Probation Service to work out a system by which the Probation Service's mind and efforts are focused more closely upon what might be more appropriate in an individual case. However, I place on record as a caveat the fact that we on
228
these Benches note that there may be an unintended outcome to the way in which the Government have phrased the amendments.
As I mentioned earlier, I certainly welcome the fact that the Government have thought again on the way in which Clause 43 should operate. I thank the Minister for the concessions which have been made.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, this matter was originally raised at Second Reading by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice as a matter of concern. It has been handled in a very non-partisan way. I am most grateful to the Minister for the way in which he has listened, not only to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice but also to those matters put forward by the noble Baronesses, Lady Anelay and Lady David, and myself at the meeting which we had some weeks ago in his office.
The provisions of Amendment No. 27 substantially meet all the problems which I felt were created by the original version of this clause. In particular, I am grateful for the fact that among the matters with which a justices' clerk cannot deal is the point that I raised about the prohibition on the publication of matters disclosed in court.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, indicated that this was in no sense intended as a criticism of the capacity of justices' clerks. Indeed, as I said in Committee, if anything, this is the opposite problem, since justices' clerks are professionally qualified and trained whereas lay magistrates are not. It is a matter of some importance to ensure that the role of justices' clerks is not allowed to take over from the role which is properly that of magistrates.
However, this is one matter that has clearly had a happy ending. I am most grateful to the Minister for the action he has taken.
Viscount Tenby: My Lords, as someone involved in a somewhat desultory way with the original Clause 40 of the Bill but who was unable, alas, to attend the very important meeting at the Home Office at a later date, I wish to associate myself with the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I thank the Minister for being so approachable and so accommodating on this subject.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostynmoved Amendments Nos. 23 and 24:
Page 34, line 18, leave out from ("informations") to end of line 20.
Page 34, line 23, after ("may") insert (", subject to subsection (2A) below,").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostynmoved Amendments Nos. 27 and 28:
Page 34, line 30, at end insert—
("(2A) Rules under that section which make such provision as is mentioned in subsection (2) above shall not authorise a justices' clerk—

(a) without the consent of the prosecutor and the accused, to extend bail on conditions other than those (if any) previously imposed, or to impose or vary conditions of bail;

(b) to give an indication of the seriousness of an offence for the purposes of a pre-sentence report;

(c) to remand the accused in custody for the purposes of a medical report or, without the consent of the prosecutor and the accused, to remand the accused on bail for those purposes on conditions other than those (if any) previously imposed;

(d) to give a direction prohibiting the publication of matters disclosed or exempted from disclosure in court; or

(e) without the consent of the parties, to give, vary or revoke orders for separate or joint trials in the case of two or more accused or two or more informations.").

Page 34, line 34, at end insert—
("( ) In this section and section 44 below "justices' clerk" has the same meaning as in section 144 of the 1980 Act.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 44 [Early administrative hearings]:
Lord Williams of Mostynmoved Amendments Nos. 29 and 30:
Page 35, line 1, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
("(3) At such a hearing the single justice—

(a) may exercise, subject to subsection (2) above, such of his powers as a single justice as he thinks fit; and

(b) on adjourning the hearing, may remand the accused in custody or on bail.

( ) This section applies in relation to a justices' clerk as it applies in relation to a single justice; but nothing in subsection (3)(b) above authorises such a clerk to remand the accused in custody or, without the consent of the prosecutor and the accused, to remand the accused on bail on conditions other than those (if any) previously imposed.").
Page 35, leave out lines 4 to 7.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 46 [Provisions supplementing section 45]:
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 31:
Page 36, line 44, leave out ("Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 ("the 1994 Act"),") and insert ("1994 Act,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 47 [Crown Prosecution Service: powers of non-legal staff]:
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 32:
Page 37, leave out lines 35 to 37.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 33 to 37. The main objective of this new Clause 47 is to enable designated lay staff to deal with the sort of case which Narey described as a, "straightforward guilty plea". It is also intended that they should be able to present motoring cases which fall to be proved in the defendant's absence. Unfortunately, it is not open to us to adopt here in the Bill the expression used by Narey. Although we know what we
230
mean by a "straightforward guilty plea"—that is, cases where there is no dispute as to the facts—it is rather difficult to define it on the face of the Bill. As a result, we must proceed by way of exclusion.
On Report, I said that we would be willing to exclude from the scope of the clause cases involving indictable-only offences. That is one of the effects of the amendments. CPS staff who are not legally qualified will not be capable of undertaking the review of indictable-only cases or their presentation in the magistrates' courts (which will in future, owing to Clause 45, be a very brief stage in the proceedings).
Indeed, in excluding indictable-only cases, the amendment will actually remove an existing power of lay staff. The current Section 7A of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 is subject to no restriction as to the offences in respect of which a bail application may be made, and there is nothing to prevent lay staff from dealing with bail applications in indictable-only cases. Those critics who have referred to this possibility as though it were the result of this clause are, therefore, mistaken: it represents the present theoretical position, although in practice lay staff do not deal with such cases. The amendment brings the provision and the practice into line by making it clear that lay presenters will perform no functions in respect of indictable-only cases.
I also said on Report that we would examine whether further drafting improvements could be made to the clause. The amendments will exclude from Clause 47 the powers of a Crown prosecutor in relation to decisions whether to institute proceedings. The decision to institute proceedings is usually taken by the police, and the sort of case in which it falls to the CPS to take that decision would certainly not be suitable for lay staff to deal with but should be reserved to a Crown prosecutor.
There is a further category of business which we believe it will be possible to exclude; namely, the review of cases which are to be committed to the Crown Court, or dealing with committal proceedings. With your Lordships' approval, we shall return to those matters in another place.
The amendment tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, would restrict lay staff to dealing with non-imprisonable offences. As I commented on Report, such a restriction would have the disadvantage of preventing lay staff from dealing with some offences which, though imprisonable, would be entirely within the range of the lay staff. I do not believe that that represents the right way forward.
I know that the degree of supervision which is to be exercised over lay staff by Crown prosecutors is a matter of concern. I am advised that the current formula,
"subject to instructions given by the Director",
is sufficient to cover the supervision which it is certainly intended should be exercised by legally-qualified Crown prosecutors. However, if there is any doubt on the subject, we should of course be ready to dispel it.
I should also like to reiterate the assurances that I gave previously about guidance and training. There will be a requirement on the face of the Bill that the

231
guidance which the director issues as to the deployment of lay staff should be published in the annual report of the CPS, and that any changes which may subsequently be made to that guidance should be publicised in the same way. We intend to ensure that lay staff who are designated under this clause are given thorough training in the law, practice and procedure in magistrates' courts and in how to present the facts of a case. This is a substantial programme which will take some time to complete, but, as the provision is to be piloted in a few areas before it is adopted nationwide, the training initially required will be on a manageable scale.
Finally, perhaps I may deal with one matter which I know has caused concern to certain people; namely, the prospect of a case being heard by a court consisting entirely of laymen where an unrepresented defendant pleads guilty before a lay Bench and a lay presenter appears for the Crown. That fails to take into account the court clerk. By virtue of the Justices' Clerks (Qualifications of Assistants) Rules 1979, clerks in courts must either be professionally qualified or be qualified by reason of experience.
I believe that we have taken very largely on board the many legitimate concerns raised about the drafting of Section 7A of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. I very much hope that we have met all the legitimate concerns of noble Lords. I also hope that I have said enough to persuade your Lordships that our broad aim here is one that we all share; namely, to implement the Narey proposal and not to introduce a more general provision. I beg to move.
8.15 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I hope that I may speak now to my amendment as the Minister made mention of it. I am certainly grateful for the fact that, since the Committee stage, the Minister has had further meetings with regard to how the clause may be amended. I am grateful to him for the invitation to attend the meeting which was held yesterday afternoon. I know that the meeting was attended not only by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, but also by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and representatives of the Bar Council. I apologise for the fact that I was unable to attend that meeting, but I was one of the very few Members of this House who were in the Chamber yesterday for the proceedings on the Social Security Bill until late last night. I was certainly pleased to hear that some modest but, nonetheless, important progress was made at that meeting.
My amendment refers to the remaining area of concern whereby it was felt that it would not be appropriate for lay presenters to be able to prosecute cases which consisted of offences triable either way or offences which may only be summary in themselves but which, on conviction, could leave the convicted person open to a sentence of imprisonment. I noted what the Minister said about the potential competence of lay people to deal with such cases, the provision of training
232
which is intended to be put in place and, indeed, the piloting which is to be carried forward before the system is established nationwide.
However, I have some residual concerns about whether sufficient attention has been paid to some of the complexities which may arise quite unexpectedly in what may appear to be the most simple and straightforward of cases. Indeed, I recall debates in this Chamber yesterday evening during proceedings on the Social Security Bill—and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will remember because he was one of the select band concerned—when we discussed the fact that one could have at an appeal tribunal a case which simply seemed to be an open and shut matter until, for example, something like an administrative announcement had to be made, or the production of a document which had not hitherto been produced was required, or an explanation needed to be given, which had not been given to the person at the tribunal.
I believe that that reads across to the kind of situation that one can have in what appears to be a straightforward summary matter. I have concerns which I hope the Minister will be able to quell tonight as regards how the cases will be allocated to lay people. Of course I am aware that there will be qualified justices' clerks in magistrates' courts. Indeed, from the discussion on the last amendment, I recognise the experience that they have. However, the person who is acting on behalf of the CPS—the lay person—could find that he is at a distinct disadvantage if something unexpected occurred. It could well be that the experienced justices' clerk notices something that is wrong with a particular document which has been served. From my own past experience as a magistrate, I know that that is not an uncommon feature of life in such courts. For example, it may well be that the justices' clerk notices that someone has decided on a particular plea which is not appropriate. Indeed, justices' clerks have some knowledge of documents that magistrates do not and yet they are in a position where they cannot, as justices' clerks, advise defendants.
I do not believe that there is in every sense a way of predicting what is a simple, straightforward case. I should be grateful if today the Government could say how they hope to ensure that only simple, uncontested cases will be involved. I have expressed that badly. However, I hope that the Minister can reassure me that the Government and the public can be satisfied that lay persons will deal only with simple, uncontested cases. I hope he can give me some idea of what is meant by "simple". I should be happy if that could be explained. If I were satisfied on that point, I would not feel it necessary to move my amendment. Having sat as a magistrate, I know that lay justices do a valuable job. However, they should not be expected to deal with problems caused by the CPS having delegated the presentation of a case to a lay person. They have the right to expect a professional presentation of even the most simple, straightforward cases.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I, too, am most grateful to the Government for having moved as far as they have to meet the concerns which have been expressed both

233
inside and outside the House as regards the proposed new clause. I record my thanks for the meeting yesterday with both the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General and the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, and for the evident time and trouble both they and their officials have taken over these matters.
The three main areas of concern as regards delegation to non-legal staff are the following. First, I address the categories of offence which non-legal staff may handle. I recognise that the Government have moved at least half-way on this, but I support the request of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for more clarification of how straightforward cases will in practice be predicted.
Secondly, there is concern about the functions which may be delegated. The decision to institute proceedings has now been removed from non-legal staff by the government amendments this evening. However, I understand that the subsequent conduct of proceedings will remain a matter capable of delegation. However, I should be grateful for confirmation on my next point, if possible, from the noble and learned Lord who is to reply. Will it still be mandatory, at least by some internal regulation, for certain decisions to be referred to legally qualified staff, for example whether to accept a plea of guilty to a lesser offence? There is also the problem of the Newton hearings, some of which can be remarkably straightforward but some of which can be remarkably complicated and long drawn out. How will these be allocated in practice as between lay presenters and legally qualified staff? My understanding is, again, that straightforward matters can be left to lay presenters, but how will this be determined in practice and anticipated in advance?
I have only two experiences of Newton hearings. One was when I represented a burglar charged with stealing a quantity of cutlery who insisted that, although he was guilty of taking the knives and the forks, he was not guilty of taking the spoons. This did not trouble the court for long or, I suspect, make any difference to the sentence which he received. On the other hand, I have also represented a woman of good character who was charged with taking a large sum of money from her employers. She would not explain what had happened to the money, nor her reason for doing so. It emerged at the last moment that her real motivation had been extreme pressure and threats from unlawful money lenders. No doubt the Newton hearing in that case made a substantial difference to the sentence which was passed, which otherwise, almost inevitably, would have been a sentence of imprisonment for someone who had never been near a prison before. How will that work in practice?
The third area of concern is, of course, supervision and training. I hope that it is now accepted by the Government that the general phrase in the Bill providing for instructions to be given does not of itself require there to be direct supervision of individual staff to whom these functions are to be delegated. I suggest it remains a failing of the Bill that there is no reference on the face of the Bill to direct supervision. However, I understand that there will in practice be supervision in place. I understood the noble and learned Lord in introducing these amendments
234
to say that this is a matter which will be covered in the annual reports, presumably to allow for a degree of flexibility.
We are left with the promise that more is to come in another place. It is perhaps unfortunate that we are having to debate these matters and consider these amendments in advance of the report by Sir Iain Glidewell. At Committee stage I understood that there was at least a possibility that that report would be with the Government before this Bill completed its passage through the House. However, that may not now be the case. Can the noble and learned Lord give an indication when the Glidewell report is to be expected?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions that have been made to the debate on these government amendments. I shall deal with the three main points. First, as regards categories of offence that will be dealt with by lay presenters, as I indicated, the Narey Report deals with the question of uncontested cases which it has in mind for lay presenters. Narey states,
"One of the things which most struck me on visiting CPS offices was the amount of entirely straightforward work being handled in the office and at court by lawyers. Much of this work must he dispiriting. I am convinced that administrative staff, managed by lawyers and dealing exclusively with uncontested cases, could successfully and efficiently present cases at court, freeing lawyers to concentrate on contested cases".
Narey does not go further than that. One category of case we have in mind is where there is a simple series of facts and where a guilty plea is anticipated. The other category is where there is the need to prove the case against the defendant in a motoring case in the absence of the defendant. I think I mentioned at Report that I had visited the Abingdon Crown Prosecution Service where a lawyer had returned from Banbury having spent the whole day reading out computer print-outs which proved speeding offences had been committed when motorists passed the "boxes" set up at the roadside. I believe it is that kind of case and the simple guilty plea where the defendant does turn up which will be the kind of uncontested case that the lay presenter will deal with.
Secondly, I turn to function. As the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said, non-legal staff will no longer be entitled to initiate proceedings. He asked whether they would have to refer any kinds of decision to a legally qualified person. Plainly they will have to do so in certain situations, for example when deciding whether to accept a plea to a lesser charge. The noble Lord mentioned that example. The noble Lord referred to Newton hearings. These are not strictly contested matters. However, if there is any substantial issue which affects the basis of the plea, we would normally expect that that would not be dealt with by a lay presenter. As the noble Lord said, some Newton hearings simply involve the production of a letter to show, for example, that an insurance was only five days out of date as opposed to 15 days out of date. We see no reason why the lay presenter should not be present in the room when the letter is produced to show what the position is.
In regard to the important point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, it is absolutely right that one cannot predict whether a case which looks

235
straightforward will be straightforward. All that one can do is make a reasonable judgment in that regard. In my experience, most cases that look straightforward—I emphasise the word "most"—are straightforward. However, as regards those which go wrong, as it were, or become more complicated at the magistrates' court, we hope that eventuality will be provided for in the guidance that is to be issued. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, referred to the important point of supervision. That will be dealt with in the guidance. Following a future amendment, the Crown Prosecution Service will be under an obligation to publish that guidance as a result of a requirement to be placed in the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Meston, referred to the Glidewell Report. It is anticipated that this Bill will complete its passage through this House during the course of this evening. The bad news is that Sir Iain Glidewell has not yet produced his report. Unless it arrived when I was out—and I have reason to believe that it did not—it will not be produced before the Bill has gone through this House. I have not checked Hansard, but I do not think that I said it would come before the Bill went through this House but before the Bill came into force. I hope that will remain the position.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I may have misunderstood the position. I believe the noble and learned Lord said at an earlier stage that it might be produced before the Bill completes its passage through Parliament, not through this House.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am not sure when the Bill will complete its passage through Parliament as a whole. I am not sure when Glidewell will appear, either. I cannot tell you which will come first. I did say that we would see it before the Bill was brought into force, and I am sure that that will remain the position. I think I have dealt with the noble Lord's concerns.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendments Nos. 33 to 35:
Page 37, line 38, leave out ("such a") and insert ("a Crown").
Page 37, line 43, at end insert—
("( ) the powers of such a Prosecutor in relation to the conduct of criminal proceedings not falling within paragraph (b)(ii) above.").
Page 38, line 5, leave out ("has") and insert ("would have").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 36:
Page 38, line 6, after ("Act") insert ("if in that section "offence" did not include an offence triable only on indictment;
3 "criminal proceedings" does not include proceedings for an offence triable only on indictment;").
[Amendment No. 37, as an amendment to Amendment No. 36, not moved.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 38:
After Clause 48, insert the following new clause—
FORFEITURE OF RECOGNIZANCES
(" . For subsections (1) and (2) of section 120 of the 1980 Act (forfeiture of recognizances) there shall be substituted the following subsections—
"(1) This section applies where—

(a) a recognizance to keep the peace or to be of good behaviour has been entered into before a magistrates' court; or

(b) any recognizance is conditioned for the appearance of a person before a magistrates' court, or for his doing any other thing connected with a proceeding before a magistrates' court.

(1A) If, in the case of a recognizance which is conditioned for the appearance of an accused before a magistrates' court, the accused fails to appear in accordance with the condition, the court shall—

(a) declare the recognizance to be forfeited;

(b) issue a summons directed to each person bound by the recognizance as surety, requiring him to appear before the court on a date specified in the summons to show cause why he should not be adjudged to pay the sum in which he is bound;

and on that date the court may proceed in the absence of any surety if it is satisfied that he has been served with the summons.
(2) If, in any other case falling within subsection (1) above, the recognizance appears to the magistrates' court to be forfeited, the court may—

(a) declare the recognizance to be forfeited; and

(b) adjudge each person bound by it, whether as principal or surety, to pay the sum in which he is bound;

but in a case falling within subsection (1)(a) above, the court shall not declare the recognizance to be forfeited except by order made on complaint." ").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this clause seeks to strengthen the use of sureties in bail cases. A surety is a person who undertakes to hand over an agreed sum to the court if a bailed defendant fails to attend a court hearing. The new measure gives the magistrates' courts a new power to declare a recognizance—that is, the agreed sum—to be forfeited immediately and automatically where a defendant fails to appear at a court hearing. The new clause deals only with the procedure in the magistrates' courts only because it is only those courts to which the existing provisions apply. Forfeiture of a surety's recognizance in other courts is dealt with by rules of court, which may be amended by subordinate legislation.
The aim of this measure is to make sureties take their responsibilities more seriously. In too many cases, delay is caused by adjournments due to the non-appearance of the defendant. Stricter enforcement is needed to ensure that defendants who are released on bail surrender to the custody of the court at the next hearing.
Sureties are an important part of the bail process. The court may release a defendant on bail subject to providing a surety in cases where it considers that the defendant may not otherwise answer to bail. The particular advantage of the use of a surety, of course, is that that person can be with the defendant between hearings ready to remind him that it is in the best

237
interest of the defendant, and indeed of the surety, for the defendant to attend court. In addition, where despite the surety's best efforts it seems that the defendant is intending to abscond, the surety is obliged to contact the police. The surety will generally be a friend or relative, but principally someone with influence over the defendant, who will promise to pay a sum to the court in the event that the defendant fails to appear at his next court hearing. This is a heavy responsibility and the surety should be certain that he or she would be able to ensure the defendant's appearance before making such an undertaking.
At present, where a defendant fails to answer to bail the court must first consider the extent to which the surety was at fault before deciding whether the sum should be forfeited and whether the person bound should pay the whole sum or only part of it. In some cases we believe that this approach may encourage the surety to enter into this contract recklessly, perhaps in the belief that he will easily be able to persuade the court that he did all that he could and that his money is never in danger.
The new measure which we are proposing will scotch that mistaken belief and send a strong signal to prospective sureties about the seriousness of the undertaking and the consequences of failing to keep to their side of the bargain. On the non-appearance of the defendant, the court will immediately declare automatic forfeiture of the sum. Notice of the forfeiture will then be sent to the surety together with a summons to attend court for the purpose of showing why the sum should not be paid. The court will then make a decision whether to order payment of the sum in whole or in part or whether to remit it to the surety. If the surety fails to answer the summons, the court may proceed in his or her absence provided that it is satisfied that the summons has been correctly served. This will enable the collection process to begin at an earlier stage than at present.
Under the new system, sureties will still have the opportunity to explain why they were unable to keep their side of the contract and the court retains the discretion to decide whether the sum should in fact be paid, in the light of the particular circumstances. But the important difference is that the onus for establishing lack of culpability is shifted fairly and squarely onto the surety. The fact that the declaration of forfeiture is automatic upon the defendant's failure to appear creates a much stronger link between the defendant's absconding and the surety losing his money. For this reason the surety will take his responsibilities more seriously and ensure that the defendant appears in more cases, thereby reducing adjournments and delay. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I speak to this amendment and the subsequent amendment that the noble Lord will be moving shortly. I speak not of the substance of the two amendments but to thank the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, for writing to me on the 26th of March about these amendments and a number
238
of other government amendments and offering some explanation as to what they are about. This is the first opportunity I have had to thank him for that.
Having listened to the noble and learned Lord and having read the letter of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, at first glance we entirely accept these two amendments. It might be, however, that my honourable and right honourable friends in another place, on looking at the amendments more closely, will have other concerns which they may wish to come back to when the Bill proceeds through their House. At this stage, so far as we can see, we would accept the purpose behind this new clause and have no objection to it.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, it frequently happens that the sureties do appear and it is the defendant who is missing. This clause is so drafted that the court must first of all declare a recognizance to be forfeited and then issue a summons to each person bound by the recognizance as surety requiring him to appear. If he is already there, the provision that a summons must be issued to him is unnecessary. I would respectfully suggest that the Minister could look at that wording again.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am grateful for the qualified welcome that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, has given to this amendment and the next one. Regarding the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, I will take note of what he says about whether there is a need for a summons if the surety is there.
The format of the clause is that once there is a non-appearance by the defendant then the recognizance is automatically forfeit. That is what happens at that stage. The next stage is for the summons to be issued so that he can have an opportunity at a later stage to come and say whether there is any good reason why it should not remain forfeit. It is a two-stage process. The first stage is intended to underline that that happens immediately with an opportunity at a subsequent date to come and say why he should be relieved from his responsibilities. Subject to that, I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I do not think that the noble and learned Lord has followed what I said. New Section 1A(b) refers to issuing.
"a summons directed to each person bound by the recognizance as surety".
That may of course be a person bound in his own recognizance. But sureties are normally independent people who frequently are there. They simply tell the court that they have no idea where the defendant is; they have done their best; but that is it. It seems excessive that they should then be summonsed to appear to give an explanation at a later date and to be put to all the expense and trouble of such an appearance. That is my point.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 39:
After Clause 48, insert the following new clause—
BAIL: RESTRICTIONS IN CERTAIN CASES OF HOMICIDE OR RAPE
(" . In subsection (1) of section 25 of the 1994 Act (no bail for defendants charged with or convicted of homicide or rape after previous conviction of such offences), for the words "shall not be granted hail in those proceedings" there shall be substituted the words "shall be granted bail in those proceedings only if the court or, as the case may be, the constable considering the grant of bail is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances which justify it".").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment will restore to the police and to the courts their rightful discretion in relation to the granting of bail in certain cases, a discretion which was removed by Section 25 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
Section 25 of the 1994 Act prohibits the grant of bail to a person charged with or convicted of murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, rape or attempted rape if he has previously been convicted in the United Kingdom of any such offence and was, in the case of manslaughter, sentenced to imprisonment or, in the case of a child, detention. This means that, regardless of the particular circumstances of the case, the police and the courts are prevented by law from considering whether a person in those circumstances should be released on bail. The new clause amends Section 25 so that, instead of a complete ban on the grant of bail in those circumstances, there is in effect a rebuttable presumption that bail should not be granted in such cases.
The offences concerned here are very serious and the fact that a person charged with or convicted of one of those offences has previously been convicted of any such offence cannot and should not be ignored by those who have to consider whether that individual should be placed in custody or whether he should be released on bail. But to remove the ability of the police and the courts to make that decision is not in the interests of justice. It cannot be right to fetter the judicial discretion of the court in this way. It is possible, although I would suggest most unlikely, that there may be very exceptional circumstances where a release on bail in such cases might be the more appropriate option. The police and the courts should not be denied a statutory discretion to enable them to take account of those circumstances where appropriate.
In providing for such discretion, this amendment does not of course mean that defendants with previous convictions for these very serious offences will now be released on bail. As I have said, given the very serious nature of the offences and the associated risk to the public, this is highly unlikely to be the case. It was certainly not the case before the introduction of Section 25, which is one of the reasons why, when in Opposition, we argued that that provision was unnecessary. Indeed I recall that, during the passage of the Bill that became the 1994 Act, when we pressed the then government to give examples of cases which demonstrated the need for such an extreme provision, they had a very difficult time of it. They were unable to cite a single case where such a defendant had been
240
granted bail, let alone an example of such a bailed defendant committing an offence while on hail, thereby casting doubt on the bail decision. The fact is that, as with any remand decision, the court will have to consider, in accordance with the provisions of the Bail Act 1976, whether the person before the court would, if released on bail, abscond, commit an offence or interfere with the course of justice. In reaching that decision, they must have regard, among other matters, to the nature and seriousness of the offence and to the defendant's antecedents.
There are also existing safeguards to insure against any unacceptable risk to the public as a result of the judicial discretion which we are proposing to restore. The Bail (Amendment) Act 1993, which applies to cases involving any offence attracting a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment or more, gives the prosecution a right of appeal to a Crown Court judge against a magistrates' court decision to grant bail. The defendant must be kept in custody pending the outcome of the appeal. In addition, the Bail Act indicates that if a defendant who has been charged with any such offence is granted bail and representations have been made that he should be denied bail, the court must state its reasons for granting bail and cause those reasons to be included in the record of the proceedings.
When in Opposition we argued against the introduction of Section 25 in 1994, but we were mindful then and remain aware of public concern about some bail decisions. While it is important that the bail decision remains with those who are in possession of the full facts of the particular case, the public must have confidence in the bail process as a whole. Section 25 as amended will ensure that where the police or the courts are dealing with cases of what might well be repeat homicide or rape, the presumption will be that the defendant is taken into custody. We consider that, in the exceptional cases at which Section 25 is targeted, it is right to reverse the general presumption in favour of bail and shift the onus onto the defence to provide good and sufficient reason why bail should not be denied. We do not envisage that this new burden on the defence will be easily overcome in most cases, but to rule out the possibility of granting bail cannot be justified.
We see this new provision as allowing some flexibility to prevent injustice, while ensuring that the protection of the public remains the primary concern and providing a tough additional safeguard against bad bail decisions in these particularly serious circumstances. I beg to move.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I feel like a spectator on the road to Damascus. I reached for my very dark glasses because light appears to have dawned upon the Government in two specific ways. First, they are going back to a position that they adopted in Opposition; and I cannot remember that happening before in all the eight or nine days that we have spent on this Bill. Secondly, I could hardly believe my ears when I heard the noble and learned Lord talk about flexibility to prevent injustice: that it cannot be right to

241
fetter the discretion of the court. The whole thrust of the Bill so far has been to remove discretion from the courts and to seek to impose limitations upon their powers.
I hope that this is a genuine conversion and that we see Ministers turning again towards what I regard as the true light of justice and flexibility. I support the amendment.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, I congratulate the noble and learned Lord on bringing forward the amendment and thank him. Hard laws can be bad laws. I am grateful to the Government for taking the courageous view that it is right to reintroduce this discretion.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 40 not moved.]
Baroness Masham of Ilton Baroness Masham of Ilton moved Amendment No. 41:
After Clause 55, insert the following new clause—
("Young female offenders: detention
DETENTION OF GIRLS UNDER 18
An offender who is convicted of any offence punishable with detention and who is a girl under the age of 18 shall he kept separate from adults and shall he detained in a separate institution such as local authority secure accommodation, or in a separate part of an institution also holding adults, unless, after assessment and in exceptional circumstances, it is held to he in the best interests of the offender to he held with adults for a temporary period.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I return to your Lordships about young girls in prison. I hope that the third attempt will be lucky.
At Report stage, the amendment came very late and some of the loyal supporters had had to go home. I was grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, who stayed to support and to speak to the amendment, especially as she was still recovering from 'flu, the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, who feels that it is an important matter, and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, who has supported it throughout.
The amendment would make it unlawful for girls aged under 18 to be held with adults in prison. This would bring the UK into line with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 37, to which the Government entered a reservation. I do not know why. It requires that juveniles and adults would be held separately.
The separation of the under-18s from the adults in women's gaols since the Howard League's report amounts merely to providing separate sleeping accommodation. Daily activities are still shared with adults except in the minority of cases. While these wings operate under the young offenders institution rules, in practice this has made no difference to the mixed regime culture and environment which the girls continue to experience. The YOI rules are virtually the same as the prison rules.
When I chaired the Howard League inquiry into young girls in prison, I went into it with an open mind. Having spoken to many governors, two only last week, and prison chaplains, I have not found one who said that the under-l7 girls should be in adult prisons.
Young males under 21 are held separately in young offender institutions. They do not go to adult prisons. Why then discriminate against girls? There are far fewer of them. Adolescent girls need skilled people to help them out of a very difficult period in their lives. Are girls pushed into prison and doomed to a life of crime, being institutionalised at the ages of 15 and 16 because they are a problem not worth bothering about?
I wonder how many of your Lordships agree with the Howard League and the Chief Inspector of Prisons that there are hardly any circumstances in which prison is a better option for a child than a secure local authority unit. If there should be specialised circumstances such as a young mother wanting to have her baby with her, or any special treatment, the amendment allows for this.
I am most concerned about 15 year-old and 16 year-old girls who are of statutory school age. When the Howard League visited a women's prison last week which has created a separate unit for the under 21s, it was found that maths, English, first aid and crafts were available from 9.30 to 11 a.m. and there was nothing specially available for young people under school leaving age, for those with special needs, or for those wanting to take exams such as GCSEs or NVQs.
It is a good idea that the Government are trying to get young people who have left school into training and work. Is this short period of education in prison going to fit these girls into a working life? Also, they are locked up in their cells by 5 or 5.30 p.m. until 8 a.m. on most days. What hope are they going to have when they leave prison? Some of them may be returning to school and, having been in an adult prison, what is that going to be like for them? In a secure unit a full day of education is provided. The national curriculum is available for children under school leaving age. Special needs teaching is available for those who need it. Older children can do A-levels if suitable. At the end of the school day various individual and group therapy work is provided, which covers offending behaviour, drug and alcohol abuse, anger management, bereavement counselling, and sexual and physical abuse counselling; and special help is brought in if needed for individuals.
The environment of a secure unit lacks the austerity, aggression and drug culture which exists in most of the prisons. Secure units have a wealth of experience of mixing children who are there on welfare grounds with children of different ages who have come to the unit via the criminal justice system. Most units encompass flexible usage and have the facilities to separate groups of children into living accommodation according to their suitability and compatibility.
There are some secure units which do not provide the high level of care that they should, but they rarely drop to the level of regimes provided in prison. If they do, the social services inspectorate has the power to withdraw the unit's licence to operate—a sanction which is not available for prisons. The chances are that the young girls will be nearer to their homes in a regional secure unit.
Last Wednesday, during a debate on prisons, concern was voiced about the increase in women going to prison; the figure seems to be growing all the time. Your

243
Lordships will now have to decide whether prison is the best place for under-17 adolescent girls, who are the most complex, difficult and vulnerable group in the criminal justice system. I beg to move.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, I wish again to support the noble Baroness, who, as I think all those who have listened to this debate will know—it has now taken place on three separate occasions—has championed a particular group who, frankly, are a blot on our penal system. Indeed, so long as the situation continues whereby we send these young girls to adult prisons, they will continue, I am bound to say, to be a blot on our Government, who have pledged themselves to equal treatment for men and women, boys and girls.
I say that, fully appreciating that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, both understands and sympathises with my remarks. In what I am about to say, in no way do I minimise the difficulties which he and the Home Office face in making suitable provision for these girls. I hope that my remarks are realistic. It seemed clear from earlier debates that there was no immediate prospect of this wholly unsatisfactory situation being resolved, and I very much appreciated the noble Lord's offer on the previous occasion to return to this House in due course and report progress. I hope that he may be able to go a little further than that tonight. If he cannot, perhaps I may simply say this. There must be real concern that, in the meantime, so long as this deplorable state of affairs continues, the girls who are detained in this way should at the very least not receive not less favourable treatment than their male contemporaries, at least in relation to education and training.
I hope that, at the very least, this evening the noble Lord may be able to go further than he has gone on previous occasions and give us some assurance that there will be an immediate improvement in relation to those matters. The costs, given the numbers of girls involved, cannot be that great, and it is surely the very least that we should be doing.
Viscount Tenby: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Masham, if I may so describe her, and others. We surely all agree that to deny young girls in prison the facilities available to boys, as the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, has just said—namely, accommodation separate from adults—is bizarre in the extreme. I am not persuaded by arguments about the usefulness of "mother figures" and by phrases like that. Of course these girls should not be in adult prisons at all. The fact that at any one time only a comparative few are involved does not in any way mitigate a sense of disbelief that such a state of affairs should exist in this country.
No one doubts the commitment and compassion of the noble Lord the Minister in these and related matters. Indeed, the care and detail with which, on Report, he produced the figures relating to the situation as it was as recently as the 10th of this month, is an indication of that concern. However, we have the extraordinary anomaly that, while girls detained under Section 53
244
are, for the most part, housed in secure local accommodation, 13 out of 17 in the 15 to 17 age group—those charged with lesser offences—are in prison.
The noble Lord, faced as he is, I appreciate, with an inherited situation, with little money and the prospect of even less likelihood of additional funds, seeks to put a gloss on matters, extolling the virtues of flexibility and even going so far as to say, in the debate on 19th March,
"not all local authority secure units provide as good a level of care as is desirable"—[Official Report, 19/3/98; col. 913.]
Be that as it may, they will almost inevitably be nearer a prisoner's friendly family and support probation service, and will additionally have greater educational resources—probably almost twice as many as will be available within a senior establishment. In passing, I might add that I found the noble Lord's remark very revealing and a justification for the remarks I made on Second Reading about the need for a national inspectorate and national standards so far as local secure accommodation is concerned.
All the arguments have already been advanced by this stage of the Bill. We understand the problems the Government have in this regard, but we believe that, if humanly possible, young females should be kept in local secure accommodation and, where that is not possible, should be housed in separate accommodation in adult prisons. Like other speakers tonight, I very much hope that the Minister will be able to give us some assurances.
9 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, has been most persistent in bringing forward the issue covered by this amendment which now comes before your Lordships for the third time. Her persistence is fully justified. She has been most persuasive; she has certainly persuaded me that we should not put 16 and 17 year-old girls in custody together with more mature women, many of whom will be experienced in crime and addicted to drugs.
It is a fundamental principle of several international human rights covenants that juvenile prisoners should not be detained together with adults. That principle has never been adequately recognised by British governments, of whatever complexion. I shall be very sorry if the present Government do not take the opportunity this evening to take a step in the right direction by accepting the noble Baroness's amendment.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I join those who have congratulated the noble Baroness on her firmness and resolve in staying with this amendment. I am sorry that it has not been possible for me to be present for more of the deliberations today because the issues raised in the Bill profoundly interest me. I should explain to the House that, paradoxically, I have today been participating, in the context of my work outside the House, in an international seminar in Stockholm on ethics in governments and issues of human rights. I cannot stress how much the world is looking, with hope, to the regeneration of enlightenment under the new Government in this country.

245
What saddens me about the need for this amendment is that, knowing of my noble friend's deep personal commitment, I believe that this is precisely the kind of measure that the Government themselves should have advocated. Of course, I understand the difficulties and the expense. But it is not just a matter of rights for the girls, although I do not in any way dissent from what my noble friend Lady Mallalieu and others have said about that. What is so sad about the inability of the Government to respond on this point is the future cost to society of not implementing this measure. We all know that, in the environment that surrounds a prison, with all its inevitable connotations, the chances of successful rehabilitation are diminished, and we shall therefore face future costs as young people who could have had a chance to be rehabilitated and play a positive part in society have less chance to do so.
Like my noble friend Lady Mallalieu and others, I appreciate the difficulties in which my noble friend the Minister must find himself on this matter. I hope that he will be able to say something to reassure the House on the issue of education, and so on, for these girls. Whatever he is able to say about that will be no substitute for the Government's recognising that, whatever the cost, to have responded positively to this amendment by default—in the sense they did not put the proposition forward themselves—will be a negative step not only at present for the girls who are there but for the future consequences for society. I hope that, even at the 11th hour, the Minister will be able to find it in his heart, on behalf of the Government, to accept the very strong case repeatedly argued by the noble Baroness.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I should like to remind the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, of the Answer he gave to a Parliamentary Question of mine on this subject in January of this year when he indicated his view that the present position was unacceptable. I have known the noble Lord long enough to know that he meant every word he said then. I believe that what the House is looking for this evening is some indication of progress from the Government, who have inherited a difficult situation. It may be impossible to solve this problem in an acceptable way in the immediate future, but surely, at the very least, those at the lower end of the scale, the 15 and 16 year-olds, should not be subjected to this treatment in the future.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, there is little to add to what has been said in support of this amendment. I simply question whether the words,
"or in a separate part of the institution also housing adults",
are sufficiently strong. Perhaps the Minister can say whether such a provision would avoid the day-time sharing of facilities and regimes, which is what we so much object to in the present situation.
Lord Henley: My Lords, from these Benches I offer our support for the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. Noble Lords opposite will be aware that at Report stage, both from these Benches and the Government Back Benches, in particular by the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, considerable concern was
246
expressed about the idea that the Home Secretary was taking powers to send 10 and 11 year-olds to prison in future. For various procedural reasons, the amendment to deal with that matter did not find favour with the House. I believe that that is a matter to which my right honourable and honourable friends in another place will wish to return when the Bill goes to another place.
I believe that it would be right for this House to send the appropriate messages to the other place and that the best way of doing that is by offering support to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, for her amendment. I believe she is quite right in saying that it is inappropriate that young girls can be sent to prison because of the lack of suitable local authority secure accommodation and that the Government should make it clear that such girls should be detained in separate institutions. For those reasons, we on these Benches offer our support to the noble Baroness.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords. I have great sympathy with the overall aim of the amendment and have never pretended differently. I believe that we all share a common goal. The question is what I can offer to your Lordships this evening, bearing in mind the legitimate and courteous pressure that has come from all sides. I should mention, not least, a very well argued letter from the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, which I received this afternoon.
What we want to get to with the placement of the youngsters spoken about is to meet their needs, to address offending and to make the most effective use of the juvenile secure estate. That is where we want to go. We are not there yet. It seems to me that, rather than for me to recite what I have already cited on a number of earlier occasions either in debate or in answer to questions or in private conversation and letters, your Lordships want to know about two things: where we are getting to on separation and where we are getting to on educational provision.
We have now agreed plans for a further two physically separate units. One is at Holloway, with 40 places, and another is at New Hall near Wakefield, with 96 places. Those two establishments at the moment hold about 25 of the 90 or so sentenced juveniles—girls under the age of 18. So that will be 40 physically separate places at Holloway and 96 at New Hall. The unit at New Hall is scheduled to open in April. In Holloway there are difficulties because of the nature of the prison itself. We hope that the separate unit at Holloway will be open by the autumn.
Both of those establishments set up multi-disciplinary working groups to consider in detail the sort of regime to which a number of your Lordships have referred; that is, what can best meet the needs of the young offenders in these units. That includes staffing, the selection and training of staff, education and training, offending behaviour programmes, and what level, not least, of psychological support these young women need while being detained. New Hall already runs a modular young offender course. Eight of the 10 modules have been accredited to national standards. The remaining modules are to be submitted as soon as is practicable.

247
There are fewer than 20 girls detained under Section 53 powers. All of those under 15 are in local authority secure accommodation and most of the rest are. There are very few in Prison Service accommodation: some are in mother and baby units, which have their own difficulties in a small unit, or because they were severely disruptive, having already been placed in local authority secure accommodation. It is a fact that not all local authority secure accommodation can deal with all young girls of this age group.
From 1st April £3 million will be available to develop the kind of regimes that the Prison Service aspires to deliver: addressing offending behaviour and providing a full constructive day for inmates. I take the noble Baroness's point that one needs a full, demanding and stretching day. We are developing a framework within the Prison Service that provides the care and supervision that these juveniles need. We want to try to keep them close to home, with access to probation and other services in their home areas. Governors have been asked to submit plans on how they intend to spread the money which is available from tomorrow. It is likely that the plans will include better staff training and deployment as well as improved education and training facilities for young offenders. I know that the noble Baronesses, Lady Kennedy, Lady Mallalieu and Lady Gould, have all contacted me to express their concern about the need for improved education.
Juveniles under 17 have a minimum of 15 hours academic education per week, including English, mathematics, life skills relevant to their age and information technology. They have five hours a week physical education. The Prison Service is working at adapting the curriculum to the needs of juveniles to take into account that their academic achievement is generally of a low level, that they have a generally short attention span and that frequently, as the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, has said on earlier occasions, they have very poor self-esteem. We are planning for an individual plan for each juvenile based on a thorough assessment of individual need. Education departments in establishments liaise with schools or training establishments to facilitate continuing education and prisoners eligible to take examinations are enabled to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked whether there is a perfect physical separation in these institutions. I cannot say that that is true on every occasion. Indeed, I recognise the deficiencies to which he referred.
I hope that I have been able to provide more detail. It will not be sufficient detail to satisfy the concerns that your Lordships have expressed. This is not my concern alone. It is a government concern. The Home Secretary is particularly engaged in this matter. I have been able to give your Lordships rather more full detail than I was able to give on the last occasion. I repeat my earlier commitment, which I recognise is intended to be a discipline upon us in government, that I am happy to report hack to your Lordships, bearing in mind the
248
strictures from which I do not dissent, when we introduce the new detention and training order, which will be in the summer of next year.
I do not claim to have satisfied all your Lordships' concerns. I have not satisfied the concerns that I or my colleagues in government have had. I have set out in as much detail as I could obtain the present circumstances and the way in which we hope to progress. For my own part, I am most grateful for the tone in which everyone has directed their criticisms and complaints because I do not believe that they are unreasonably based.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have supported this amendment. I also thank those who have worked behind the scenes. The Minister knows who they are. I thank the noble Lord for his charm and sincerity over this matter.
I am very concerned about something he said tonight. I believe that there has been a step backwards and I shall say now what I believe it to be. Having these specialised units in Holloway and New Hall, particularly in Holloway, is a retrograde step because at the moment the governor of Holloway will not have girls of 15 and 16 years of age there. They are not even allowed to get out of the van. They are sent on to the young offenders' unit at Bullwood Hall. The governor told us that when we visited Holloway a short time ago. One must think of the psychological aspects for a moment for the parents having a 15 year-old in Holloway. They will have to face up to the fact that a 15 or 16 year-old is in a very secure adult prison.
The decision—it may not have been taken by this Government—to have the units there presents a very worrying situation. I visited New Hall. There is another very worrying situation there. I suppose it is because of the lack of funds that they are lacking in probation officers. They had only 50 per cent. of the probation officers required. The ones that I met were very tired, were exhausted and very worried. It is a busy prison with many disturbed women there. There is a great deal of bullying and drug abuse. It is not a place in which to put young girls.
Before I decide what to do perhaps I may ask the Minister this question. Will he say, "We shall put the 15 and 16 year-olds in a secure unit unless there are very special circumstances"? That would be a great relief. One would then know that they are receiving education and that they would not be in an adult prison. Two weeks ago there were only 30 of them, but when one considers the 17 year-olds, there were 88 of them. There were only 30 young girls. I am sure that the Government can find a way of accommodating them outside a large adult prison.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, a number of your Lordships want me to say things which I cannot conscientiously do unless I am able to guarantee delivery. If there are so few 15 and 16 year-olds, as the noble Baroness said—and that is right—I still have to accommodate the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, about keeping young girls in appropriate

249
units close to home. I am sorry to say this, but since the numbers are so small I am not going to be able to deliver those commitments.
All I can say is that I recognise the present circumstances are not satisfactory. I have demonstrated what we have done so far. I have given more detail since our last meeting together. Standing here I cannot give guarantees that I am not certain that I shall be able to deliver.
The noble Baroness made specific reference to Holloway, New Hall and the probation service. If she would give me more detail, I shall have it investigated immediately; but I cannot give responses to specific requests without knowing that there is ample resource so that we can deliver on it—not least on the question that some of the girls are serving quite small sentences. I recognise that for young people time travels in a different way than for those of us who are older. I can only repeat what I have already said. We wish to work towards an ending of this situation. I am wilfully putting myself under the yoke—I did it deliberately last time—of coming back to report on progress. I know that there is no one in this House who will not keep me to that.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply, but because I have seen some of these girls and because some of them are first-time offenders, I feel that I must seek to divide the House on this matter so that noble Lords may vote according to their consciences.
9.19 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 41) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 50; Not-Contents, 69.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Lyell, L.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Annaly, L.

McNally, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Maddock, B.

Blatch, B.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Byford, B.

Masham of Ilton, B. [Teller.]

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Munster, E.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Northesk, E.

Chesham, L.

Palmer, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

De Ramsey, L.

Renton, L.

Dholakia, L.

Renwick, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L

Flather, B.

Seccombe, B.

Fookes, B.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Goodhart, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hampton, L.

Taverne, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Tenby, V. [Teller.]

Henley, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hooson, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hylton, L.

Wharton, B.

Kinloss, Ly.

Wigoder, L.

250

NOT-CONTENTS

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Islwyn, L.

Berkeley, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Blackstone, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Burlison, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Molloy, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Monkswell, L.

Chandos, V.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Nicol, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Paul, L.

Dixon, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Fitt, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Gallacher, L.

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Gilbert, L.

Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seat.]

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Sewel, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Shepherd, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Grenfell, L.

Simon, V.

Hardie, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Haskel, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Hayman, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Varley, L.

Howell. L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Whitty, L.

Hoyle, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Winston, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath. L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.27 p.m.
Clause 56 [Reprimands and warnings]:
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 42:
Page 44, line 38, leave out from ("been") to ("and") in line 40 and insert ("convicted of an offence").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is designed to clarify that where a young person has previously been convicted of an offence and goes on to commit a further offence, he or she may not in an circumstances receive a reprimand or warning. That has always been the position of the Government as set out originally in the consultation paper Tackling Youth Crime published last September. As currently drafted, subsection (1)(d) would prevent a young person from receiving a reprimand or warning not only where he or she had a prior conviction but also in a range of other situations where a prosecution had been initiated but had resulted in a technical outcome that fell short of conviction but was not formally an acquittal or discontinuance. These include, for example, situations where the case was withdrawn by the prosecution in court before a plea was entered, cases where the prosecution was stayed for abuse of process and cases where the young person was jointly charged with an adult and the examining justices considered that there was no case to answer and discharged the defendants.

251
The Government do not believe that it is appropriate that there should be an automatic prohibition on receiving a warning or reprimand for an offence following an earlier prosecution which resulted in one of these technical outcomes, which in their nature are far closer to acquittal than conviction. The amendment is designed to restrict the scope of the automatic statutory prohibition in subsection (1)(d) to circumstances where a young person has a prior conviction.
There is, however, a further category of cases involving a prior prosecution where the Government believe that a warning or reprimand will usually be inappropriate. That category includes cases where the young person has been charged with an offence and the proceedings are still ongoing and the young person commits a further offence while on bail. In those circumstances, the use of a warning or reprimand could undermine one of the basic principles of the final warning scheme—that the response to offending by young people should be progressive. We therefore intend to make it clear in guidance that further offences committed by a young person on bail following charge should not in the vast majority of cases receive a reprimand or warning. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, this is a small step in the right direction. One has to look on it as a correction of a defect in the drafting of the Bill rather than a movement of principle in the right direction. Obviously we will not oppose it, but we continue to be sorry that the Government have seen fit to impose the degree of rigidity which they have done upon the power to issue warnings.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Flather Baroness Flather moved Amendment No. 43:
After Clause 72, insert the following new clause—
RACIAL AGGRAVATION: DUTY OF PROSECUTION
(".—(1) In relation to a prosecution for any offence it shall be the duty of the prosecution to bring to the attention of the court any information or material which contains evidence that the offence was racially aggravated.
(2) Section 24 above applies for the purposes of this section as it applies for the purposes of sections 25 to 27 and 72 above.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the Bill seeks to address the legitimate concerns of ethnic minorities and, I like to think, most right-thinking people in this country. There is far more racial violence than we should be willing to accept in a civilised country. In Clauses 25 to 27 the Government have sought to create new offences relating to racial violence and racial harassment, and with a catch-all clause, Clause 72, to ensure that everything else is covered.
I have never been certain that special offences needed to be created. I thought that a catch-all clause might have been sufficient, but having put this clause on the face of the Bill, there is an aspect which has not been addressed properly; that is, that a considerable amount
252
of behind-the-scenes activity, commonly known as plea bargaining, takes place before cases come before the courts.
A defendant is often persuaded to plead guilty to a lesser offence, in which case the racial element of that offence might not then be produced before the courts. I am deeply worried that if that takes place, the very purpose of Clauses 25 to 27 and 72 will be lost. Sentences taking into account the element of aggravation will not be passed on the defendant, as the evidence of the racial element will not be produced before the courts.
An inquiry is going on into the Stephen Lawrence case at the moment. The biggest problem in that case is the way that not just the Lawrence family but everyone else from the black and Asian communities feel grossly aggrieved that the prosecution did not do all that it could have done. That is the feeling that the community has been left with. Over time, it is built up to such an extent that an inquiry has been set up to investigate the procedure followed by the prosecution. I contend that this is a weak link in the wonderful chain proposed by the Government. I fear that the link may prove too weak for the other clauses to be effective and provide the protection which the Bill purports to give the ethnic minorities.
It would be greatly disheartening if the Bill led ethnic minorities to believe that the Government had at last grasped the nettle and would pursue that unpleasant aspect of our society with full commitment, only then to find that few prosecutions came before the courts. They may then come to the conclusion that there is only a small element of racial harassment, racial crimes and racial violence. For that reason, I have tabled the amendment which I hope the Government will accept as an important part of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I support the noble Baroness. However, perhaps I might deviate for one moment. When Amendment No. 9 was moved I was not in your Lordships' House. I was celebrating the success of Amendment No. I and in doing so I missed the opportunity to thank the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, for accepting my amendment on Report relating to racially aggravated criminal damage.
I support the noble Baroness because there is a weak link and a missing piece of the jigsaw in the legislation on racial attacks and harassment. I had hoped that after discussing the matter on Report the Minister would have had time to consider it and return with the intention of accepting this important amendment.
Perhaps I might say why the amendment is important. One of the most difficult aspects of racial attacks and harassment is in their definition. They are based on the perception of the victims and the perception of investigating officers. But when in the ethnic minority community there is an adversarial relationship between the police and the black community one will find that in many cases some of the important aspects of the investigation are forgotten.
The noble Baroness is right in citing the case of Stephen Lawrence. Anyone studying the inquiry and the evidence that has been produced cannot help but be

253
moved by the plight of the parents who repeatedly spoke of the extent of what they believe to be the weakness in the police investigation. We are putting a duty on the Crown Prosecution Service to ensure that it brings out racial motivation in the cases which are being handled.
Why is it important to bring that out? The noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General accepted that according to a rough survey which was carried out, in 18 per cent. to 20 per cent. of cases before the courts, the Crown Prosecution Service failed to bring out the element of racial motivation. If that is not brought out, there is a problem. No amount of sentencing guidelines to the magistrates or judges will help in terms of sentencing those people because the racially aggravating feature has not been brought out. That was referred to some time ago by the Home Affairs Select Committee.
But there is another factor. Agents, as they are commonly called, are employed by the Crown Prosecution Service to be responsible for the conduct of cases in a court. Those agents are not trained. I have sat on case after case where I have known that there has been racial motivation and yet no reference has been made to that in the court.
That destroys the confidence of the minority in the system established by the state because those people know what has happened; they perceive that a racial motivation exists and yet that is not brought out. Therefore, it is right that such a duty should be imposed.
That is nothing new in terms of legislation. Let us consider the Race Relations Act. Under that Act, it is the duty of the Commission for Racial Equality to eliminate discrimination and promote equality. But it also places a duty on local authorities to do the same thing. That is what we seek with this amendment. Why cannot an obligation be placed upon the Crown Prosecution Service to bring out any racial factors in the court?
I give two examples of how good practice can help and how no reference to racial motivation can create a lot of damage. Some years ago a case came before the courts in which a Pakistani taxi driver was robbed of his takings and bundled into the river. Two people were convicted. The Crown Prosecution Service quite rightly raised racial motivation as an aggravating factor in that case. In sentencing, the judge made clear his abhorrence of the racial motivation on the part of the people who had robbed the taxi driver.
It was interesting that I received a telephone call from the family of the taxi driver who had been killed. They recognised that it is very difficult to accept the death of anybody but they felt that it was easier for them because the judge had understood what had happened in that case.
I take another case which arose in the court where I sit as a magistrate. A black person was beaten up by white people. Those people were brought before the court. And yet at no stage did the Crown Prosecution Service refer to the racial element present in the offence. The court then decided to bind over not only the perpetrators for the damage that they had caused to that individual but also the black person whom the court decided was responsible because he was there. The court
254
decided that he too should be bound over. I have never heard of such a stupid way in which to deal with such an important issue.
What is it that the Government find unacceptable with this amendment? Throughout this legislation, they have shown sensitivity and concern in relation to how such matters should be handled. But when we seek to place a duty on the Crown Prosecution Service, that is rejected. I believe that the way to establish the confidence of the minority is not simply by way of the wheeling and dealing that goes on in terms of plea bargaining and the discontinuance of cases but positively so that all racial motivation is brought before the court which is to decide sentence. I support the amendment.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I have in the past advocated in this House much stronger measures to recruit people from the ethnic minorities into all branches of government service. I am delighted to say that the Brigade of Guards in which, once upon a time, I did National Service, is at last starting to do something effective in that direction. However, we are still in an interim situation and we know that in the police and the CPS there is still a considerable preponderance of white people. That is why the amendment so ably moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, is necessary. I trust that the Government will feel able to accept it.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for returning to the issue. She has an estimable record in demanding that there be racially aggravated crimes. Indeed, Clause 72 in this Bill bears a striking resemblance to an amendment that the noble Baroness moved to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill 1994. Therefore, the noble Baroness speaks with special authority in relation to this matter. Equally, the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, who moved an amendment on criminal damage with racial aggravation, which is now incorporated in the Bill, also speaks with special authority.
I do not believe that we have different aims. I believe that we are all aiming towards the same goal: namely, that there should be a racially aggravated crime and that it should be an aggravating matter in sentence; and, indeed, that such circumstances should, in every proper case, be brought before the court. I agree with all three speakers who have said that there is a missing link if such matters are not brought before the court.
However, I am sorry that I cannot agree to the terms of the amendment. I should like to explain briefly why that is. There will be cases where, although there is some evidence of a racial element to a crime, there will not be enough evidence to meet the racial aggravation test. There will also be cases where the evidence of a racial element will not be admissible, or where the evidence is uncorroborated and unreliable. In those circumstances, the prosecutor will, as he does in every case, have to use his discretion to judge whether it would be in the public interest to charge the racially aggravated offence, taking into account the likelihood of obtaining a conviction—or, in the kind of cases which

255
I mentioned, an acquittal. That decision is guided by the Code for Crown Prosecutors. That same code already places a duty on the prosecution to bring a charge commensurate with the seriousness of the offence.
We cannot have special rules in relation to racially aggravated offences. There will also be cases where, during the course of the proceedings, it will become clear to the prosecution that the racially aggravated charge is unlikely to succeed. In those circumstances, it would be in the public interest for the prosecution to accept the guilty plea to the lesser charge, rather than pressing on—as he would be obliged to if any amendment of this sort were to be adopted—to a likely acquittal.
Having said that, perhaps I may assure the noble Baroness that we anticipate that it will be exceptional for such information not to be brought to the attention of the court, and only then for legally-supportable reasons. The CPS is acutely conscious of the importance of providing the court with all information of racial aggravation and has taken steps through the Racial Incidents Monitoring Scheme to monitor all cases where racial motivation is identified, either by the police at charge or by the CPS at review. We will be evaluating those provisions in due course. The CPS will continue to monitor closely the procedures for dealing with racial incidents, and to keep records in that respect. Moreover, as long as I am able, I intend to take a personal interest in that process.
As I said on Report, the creation of these new offences will focus the attention of the police and the CPS on the importance of gathering and assessing the evidence relating to the racial element. We want to send a strong message that racist crime is unacceptable but we also need to ensure that, so far as possible, these provisions are effective in practical terms. I hope that the noble Baroness, and the two noble Lords who spoke to the amendment, will accept that the Government are serious in their commitment to tackling racist crime and that they intend to ensure that that message is clear to everyone throughout the criminal justice system. I hope that the noble Baroness feels sufficiently reassured to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Flather: My Lords, I thank the Minister for what he has said. I shall hold him to his promise to keep an eye on what is going on in the Crown Prosecution Service in this regard. I wish to mention a couple of matters which cause me concern. The Minister has referred to something which has also been mentioned to me in the past by members of the Crown Prosecution Service; namely, would you rather that someone got away with something, or would you rather that person was charged with a racially motivated crime? I fear that, in the hope of obtaining a conviction, the Crown Prosecution Service may prefer to fudge the racially motivated crime aspect and charge the defendant with another offence.
This is one of the reasons I have never supported the idea of special crimes with racial motivation as that creates a division between other crimes and specifically racially motivated crimes. In my opinion crimes are
256
crimes and racial motivation can be part of any criminal incident. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General and the Home Office Minister will both keep an eye on what happens in this respect and will at some stage produce a report on the functioning of these clauses, as I am not totally satisfied that they will achieve the end result that we all hope will and should be achieved. I shall not divide the House on this matter as it is not the appropriate time to do so, nor am I absolutely certain that this amendment is workable. Once again I am grateful to the Minister for at least considering it carefully. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 74 [Extended sentences for sex and violent offenders]:
Lord Hardiemoved Amendment No. 44:
Page 60, line 3, leave out from ("that") to ("the") and insert ("the period (if any) for which the offender would, apart from this section, be subject to a licence would not be adequate for the purpose of protecting").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 45 to 63 inclusive, 80, 98 and 99. These amendments are technical amendments intended to improve the drafting of the clauses relating to extended sentences for Scotland. They bring the terms used into line with other relevant legislation, remove superfluous wording and clarify the effects of the provisions in relation to short-term and long-term prisoners. I should be happy to explain all or any of them in further detail to any of your Lordships who desire me to do so. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I have one reservation which has arisen because Amendment No. 44 spells out more clearly what will happen. That reservation probably arises from a prediction as to how this provision will work. I see that the imposition of an extended sentence will be a judgment made at the time of sentence about the intentions of the offender with regard to reoffending after he or she has completed his or her imprisonment. I believe that extended sentences are not in fact mandatory. Therefore I wonder whether I am right that mistakes could be made either by predicting wrongly that the person will put the community in some danger or indeed by making a redundant order because the person proved to have no such intent whatsoever after he or she had left prison.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, let me explain. When a long-term prisoner is released from prison he is on licence until the end of his custodial sentence. In the case of a prisoner who has an extended sentence of four years or more, the intention is that the extension period of that sentence should start at the end of his custodial term. That is the point where he is no longer subject to parole or on parole licence following release.
The criteria in new Section 210(A)(1)(b), which the court would have regard to when considering imposing an extended sentence, is concerned with the purpose of protecting the public from serious harm by the offender on his release.

257
The reference to the words "on his release" are not entirely apt, since the prisoner may be released long before the extension period begins. In considering whether to impose the extended sentence, the court will consider whether the period during which the prisoner would, if not given a extended sentence, be subject to supervision is adequate for the purpose of protecting the public from serious harm by the offender. That needs to he more clearly expressed, and that is what the amendment seeks to do.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I accept what the noble and learned Lord has said. I persist in the view that the decision as to whether an extended sentence is to be imposed is made before the custodial period. It does not seem that the extended sentence can be added on if during the licence period it is found that the person is fairly unrepentant and likely to reoffend. That is my only point.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hardiemoved Amendments Nos. 45 to 48:
Page 60, line 4, leave out ("on his release").
Page 60, leave out lines 15 and 16 and insert ("purpose mentioned in subsection (1)(b) above.").
Page 60, line 26, leave out ("custodial").
Page 60, line 41, at end insert—
("( ) An extended sentence shall not be imposed where the sexual or violent offence was committed before the commencement of section 74 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 75 [Further provision as to extended sentences]:
Lord Hardiemoved Amendments Nos. 49 to 63:
Page 62, line 23, leave out ("an offender") and insert ("a prisoner").
Page 62, line 24, leave out ("this section") and insert ("section 75 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998").
Page 62, line 24, leave out ("is") and insert ("has been").
Page 62, line 29, after first ("a") insert ("sentence or").
Page 62, line 29, leave out ("included") and insert ("was").
Page 62, line 31, leave out ("an offender") and insert ("a prisoner").
Page 62, line 34, at end insert ("; and
(b) if he is recalled to prison, the Secretary of State may at any time thereafter, if recommended to do so by the Parole Board, release him on licence.").
Page 62, line 35, leave out ("an offender") and insert ("a prisoner").
Page 62, line 44, after second ("the") insert ("day following the").
Page 62, line 46, leave out ("offender") and insert ("prisoner").
Page 63, line 3, at end insert—
("(5A) Subject to section 210A(3) of the 1995 Act and to any direction by the court which imposes an extended sentence, where a prisoner is subject to two or more extended sentences, the extension period which is taken to begin in accordance with subsection (5) above shall be the aggregate of the extension period of each of those sentences.
(5B) For the purposes of sections 12(3) and 17(1) of this Act, and subject to subsection (5C) below, the question whether a prisoner is a long-term or short-term prisoner shall be determined by reference to the extended sentence.
258
(5C) Where a short-term prisoner serving an extended sentence in respect of a sexual offence is released on licence under subsection (4)(a) above, the provisions of section 17 of this Act shall apply to him as if he was a long-term prisoner.
(5D) In relation to a prisoner subject to an extended sentence, the reference in section 17(5) of this Act to his sentence shall be construed as a reference to the extended sentence.").
Page 63, leave out lines 4 to 8.
Page 63, line 13, leave out ("an offender") and insert ("a prisoner").
Page 63, line 14, leave out ("an offender") and insert ("a prisoner").
Page 63, line 16, leave out from ("expire") to end of line 21.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 76 [Drug treatment and testing orders]:
Lord Hardiemoved Amendment No. 64:
Page 63, line 27, at end insert ("committed on or after the date on which section 76 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 comes into force").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 64 I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 64 to 66 inclusive and 86 to 96 inclusive. These amendments are of a technical nature and correct typographical errors and errors in cross-references to the Criminal Procedures (Scotland) Act 1995. The opportunity has also been taken to clarify that the new provisions for drug treatment and testing orders can only be applied in relation to offences committed after the commencement of the relevant sections of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. I ask your Lordships to accept these amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hardiemoved Amendment No. 65:
Page 64, line 28, leave out ("has been").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 78 [Procedural matters relating to drug treatment and testing orders]:
Lord Hardiemoved Amendment No. 66:
Page 66, line 9, after ("234E") insert ("of this Act").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 83 [Offences racially aggravated]:
The Earl of Mar and Kelliemoved Amendment No. 67:
Page 71, line 35, leave out ("racially").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in this group of amendments, starting with Amendment No. 67 and running through to Amendment No. 73, we return to the question of religious intolerance, prejudice and bigotry and whether the matter should be included in the Bill. I had intended to raise this issue at the end of the Report stage but ran out of time and had to run for the sleeper.
I have read the official report of our late-night debate on the earlier section; and while we are debating the subject slightly earlier tonight, I am still not convinced that the case has been refuted.
I believe that our debate focused on religion as an intellectual activity. I referred to it as doctrinal differences. This is not the substance of the sectarianism that can be so prevalent in the cultural life of Scotland. Much of this sectarianism is rooted in intolerance and

259
jealousy of immigrants from Ireland. As a child in the 1950s living in Scotland, I learned that the immigrant problem in Scotland was the Irish. Later I made the connection with their being Roman Catholic by cultural inheritance.
I acknowledge that there are many indigenous families in Scotland who have never adopted the reformed faith, but this discrimination against the Catholic population, and vice versa, is now based on historic and cultural grounds but has little to do with any doctrinal or philosophical beliefs. It is unfair and harmful to attack someone for their cultural background and their family's indigenous or immigrant status. They can do nothing about it.
For these reasons of discrimination over historic migration, I return to this subject. From this perspective I see no difference between an historic immigrant from Ireland or from anywhere else. I beg to move.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, the amendments have a similar intention to the amendments to Clause 28, which was formerly Clause 26, laid by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, which we discussed in Committee and on Report. In responding to the debate on the amendments, I made clear that the Government abhor all crimes based on bigotry of any sort. However, I also explained our view that there would be difficulties associated with extending the scope of the clause, as the noble Earl suggests. The Bill deals with the particular problem on which we consulted, namely racial crime.
This measure is intended to reinforce the protection given to members of our society who are particularly vulnerable to the action of bigoted criminals and builds on long-standing legislation which seeks to protect individuals from prejudice on grounds of race. I reiterate the Government's condemnation of crimes motivated by religious bigotry. But for the reasons I have already explained, I ask the noble Earl to withdraw the amendments.
I should also deal with the point he mentioned specifically tonight. The amendments speak in general terms about religion. Religion is wider than the Roman Catholic religion based on Irish background. Indeed, there are many religions which are not based in Ireland. I remind the noble Earl that at an earlier stage in the passage of this Bill I referred to the Church of Scotland committee which accepted that there was a distinction between religious bigotry and racial discrimination and that the appropriate committee of the Church accepted that a distinction could and should be made. In those circumstances, that would give support to the approach that the Government have taken in consulting on racial discrimination.
Having said that, I wish to emphasise again that the Government disapprove and abhor religious bigotry as much as any other form of bigotry. I invite the noble Earl to withdraw the amendments.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, the discussion about white immigrants who are cast into
260
the cultural guise of Roman Catholics could no doubt continue all night. I have no intention of doing so. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 68 to 73 not moved.]
Clause 86 [Power to release short-term prisoners on licence]:
[Amendment No. 74 not moved.]
Clause 99 [General interpretation]:
Lord Williams of Mostynmoved Amendment No. 75:
Page 82, line 15, leave out ("1979") and insert ("1997").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 75, I speak also to Amendment No. 76. These are minor government amendments. A typographical error is corrected by Amendment No. 75. Amendment No. 76 defines the term "guardian" for the purposes of the Bill. The Bill has several references to a child guardian. We thought that a definition would be helpful. Therefore we have used the same meaning as is found in Section 107 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostynmoved Amendment No. 76:
Page 82, line 16, at end insert—
(""guardian" has the same meaning as in the 1933 Act;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I now beg to move it formally.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 103 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
[Amendments Nos. 77, 78 and 79 not moved.]
Lord Hardiemoved Amendments Nos. 80 to 84:
Page 83, line 20, leave out ("76") and insert ("51A, 75A").
Page 83, line 22, at end insert—
("( ) section 30(A3), (1) and (4);").
Page 83, line 31, leave out ("Section 100 above extends") and insert ("Section 30(A1), (A2)(a), (b) and (d) and (5)(b) and section 100 above extend").
Page 83, line 32, at beginning insert ("Section 30(A3)(b), (1) and (4) above,").
Page 83, line 40, at end insert—
("( ) The repeals in Schedule 10 to this Act, and section 102(2) above so far as relating to those repeals, have the same extent as the enactments on which the repeals operate.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move these amendments formally en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Procedure where persons are sent for trial under Section 45]:
Lord Hardiemoved Amendment No. 85:
Page 90, line 10, leave out ("(5)") and insert ("(7)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 85 formally.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Drug treatment and testing orders: Amendment of the 1995 Act]:
Lord Hardiemoved Amendments Nos. 86 to 96:
Page 103, line 46, leave out ("234H") and insert ("234J").
Page 104, line 10, leave out ("234H") and insert ("234J").
Page 104, line 20, leave out ("234A(2)") and insert ("234B(2)").
Page 104, line 30, leave out ("234A(2)") and insert ("234B(2)").
Page 104, line 46, leave out ("234B(1)") and insert ("234C(1)").
Page 104, line 49, leave out ("234B(6)") and insert ("234C(6)").
Page 105, line 13, leave out ("234F(2)(b)") and insert ("234G(2)(b)").
Page 105, line 20, leave out ("z234F(2)(b)") and insert ("234G(2)(b)").
Page 105, line 22, leave out ("233(2)(c)") and insert ("232(2)(c)").
Page 105, line 31, leave out ("234F(2)(b)") and insert ("234G(2)(b)").
Page 105, line 37, leave out ("234F") and insert ("234G").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 86 to 96 en bloc formally.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Pre-consolidation amendments: powers of criminal courts]:
Lord Hardiemoved Amendment No. 97:
Page 109, line 35, leave out from ("In") to ("for") and insert ("subsection (6) of section 1 of the 1973 Act (deferment of sentence), for the words "13(1), (2) and (5)" there shall be substituted the words "13(1) to (3) and (5).
(2) In subsection (8) of that section.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to move Amendment No. 97 formally.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord Hardiemoved Amendments Nos. 98 and 99:
Page 130, line 27, at end insert—
( "51A. In section 39 of that Act (rules for the management of prisons) after subsection (7) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(7A) In the application of subsection (7) above to a prisoner subject to an extended sentence within the meaning of section 210A of the 1995 Act, the reference to his sentence shall be construed as a reference to the custodial term of that extended sentence.".").
Page 135, line 40, at end insert—
("75A. In subsection (1) of section 1 of the 1993 Act (release of short-term, long-term and life prisoners), at the beginning there shall be inserted the words "Subject to section 26A(5C) of this Act,".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to move Amendments Nos. 98 and 99 formally.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 9 [Transitional provisions and savings]:
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendment No. 100:
Page 142, line 26, at end insert—
("Effect of child's silence at trial
Nothing in section (Effect of child's silence at trial) of this Act shall apply where the offence was committed before the commencement of that section.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 100 formally.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 10 [Repeals]:
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendments Nos. 101 to 104:
Page 144, line 16, at beginning insert—

("30 Geo 3 c.48.

Treason Act 1790.

The whole Act.

36 Geo 3 c.7.

Treason Act 1795.

The whole Act.

36 Geo 3 c.31.

Treason by Women Act(Ireland) 1796.

The whole Act.

57 Gco 3 c.6.

Treason Act 1817.

The whole Act.

11 & 12 Vict c.12.

Treason Felony Act 1848.

Section 2.

21 & 22 Geo 5 c.24.

Sentence of Death(Expectant Mothers) Act 1931.

The whole Act.")

Page 144, line 25, at end insert—

("1945 c.15 (N.I.).

Criminal Justice Act(Northern Ireland) 1945.

Sections 32 and 33.")

Page 144, line 46, column 3, at beginning insert—

("In section 1, in subsections (8)(b) and (8A) the words "37 or".")

Page 146, line 50, column 3, at end insert—

("In section 35, in subsection (1), the words "who has attained the age of fourteen years" and subsection (6).")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to move Amendments Nos. 101 to 104 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
In the Title:
Lord Hardiemoved Amendment No. 105:
Line 3, after ("incapax") insert ("and to make provision as to the effect of a child's failure to give evidence at his trial: to abolish the death penalty for treason and piracy").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
An amendment (privilege) made.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
I think that, historically, speeches on this particular occasion have become, I am told by colleagues on all sides of the House, too lengthy. I therefore will simply thank everyone who has participated in the debates on this Bill. We have had eight days of careful work. I do not think there has been a discourteous word spoken and I am bound to say that, apart from all the help I have had from all sides of the House, the discussions that we have had behind the scenes, either in correspondence or face to face, have been extremely helpful. The only last word I would say is that to produce a Bill of this quality and nature in so short a time is a real tribute to the quality of the officials who have worked tirelessly and have given all possible cheerful and willing support to all Members of your Lordships' House, whether the approaches have

263
been made directly by agreement or indirectly through me. I therefore thank everyone who has participated in this generous-hearted way.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
Lord Henley: My Lords, I should like to start by saying that I am in total agreement with the noble Lord about the historical tradition and the fact that the Bill-do-now-pass speeches have grown too long over the years. I am very grateful that the noble Lord has done his bit to make them briefer. The Bill itself has grown somewhat in the course of its passage through this House. When we started we had a Bill of about 122 pages. After Report and before this stage we had grown to 148 pages. According to my reckoning that is a 20 per cent. increase. Similarly we have grown from 96 clauses to 103 clauses. Since then we have dealt with 85 government amendments at Third Reading, with at least five new clauses, admittedly one of which the Government themselves were not so keen on having, but no doubt that is a matter they can deal with in due course.
The Bill has grown, and I make that point merely to say that, first of all, I thank the noble Lord for the constructive way in which he has dealt with it. He has accepted a number of points which have been put to him from these Benches, from our colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches and from those on the Cross-Benches. I think that reflects well on the Government and it also shows the value of the work of this House in being able to make improvements to the Bill during the course of its passage here.
I also echo exactly what the noble Lord said in paying tribute to all those who have taken part in the debates on this Bill. I would only want to single out one particular individual, and that is my noble friend and Whip, Lady Anelay, who has taken on a far greater burden on this Bill than I should have imposed on her, especially in the light of her other responsibilities, and particularly in view of the fact that she and the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will be attending to further business after this particular business has ceased—at which point I suspect that I, and possibly the noble and learned Lord will have disappeared from the Chamber.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I will follow those examples of brevity. In many ways I feel like an English footballer at Chelsea football club because I have been surrounded by much superior talent during the passage of this Bill. I am most grateful for that talent and the way in which they have contributed from these Benches. The Government have sometimes used a rhetoric which we have found too robust and too reminiscent of the previous Home Secretary. At the heart of this Bill is a community approach to crime and disorder, which we very much welcome and wish to see encouraged. We appreciate the way that Ministers have treated us with courtesy and growing flexibility in listening to our arguments. The Bill has for me been an educative experience, and much of that education has come from
264
the clear way that the Minister and his distinguished colleagues have dealt with our points. For that we are truly grateful.
Viscount Tenby: My Lords, I too rise to congratulate the Government on the passage of this important Bill. It has been an almost Sisyphean slog and the burden on the government team has been considerable. I understand the point about being brief on this occasion. Would that that thought had been mirrored during the passage of the Bill.
Two things have struck me about the proceedings. First, for a Bill which from the outset attracted a considerable amount of support from all sides of the House, an unconscionable number of amendments were put down. That surely shows this House in its most favourable light, as an amending Chamber of expert opinion and experience. Secondly, I say with great sincerity that I can rarely recall a Bill which has been conducted in an atmosphere of such good will and courtesy. Credit for that must principally go to the Front Bench spokesmen. I draw no inferences, but it may not be entirely without significance that it is an all-Celtic team. I wish this important measure every success in its passage through another place.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I am extremely grateful for all the letters I have received. It was a great pleasure to be kept informed of where I was probably going wrong. Perhaps I may upstage the noble Lord, Lord Henley, by saying that in Scotland we have gone up from six measures to eight, which I believe constitutes a 33⅓ increase.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Advice and Assistance (Assistance by Way of Representation) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1998
10.12 p.m.
Lord Hardie: I beg to move the regulations en bloc. The regulations make provision for the uprating of eligibility limits and for another necessary change to the system of legal aid in Scotland. The Law Society of Scotland has written to noble Lords indicating that it has no adverse comments about the regulations. I commend the regulations to your Lordships' House.

265
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 4th March be approved [26th Report from the Joint Committee]—(Lord Hardie.)
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for presenting these regulations to the House. We are entirely happy with them as they stand.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, we have considered these draft regulations and are entirely happy with them. We have no further comment to make.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
10.14 p.m.
Lord Evans of Parkside: 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 Evans of Parkside.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Manufacture and supply of scheduled substances]:
Baroness Anelay of St Johnsmoved the Amendment
Page 1, line 10, at end insert ("of the rank of superintendent or above"").
The noble Baroness said: It is somewhat refreshing that I do not have to refer to an amendment number between one and about 500, as has been the case with the Crime and Disorder Bill. There is just one amendment; I hope that it is nonetheless worthy to be discussed. The amendment would restrict the wide power granted to the police under the Bill to a police officer of a specified rank.
I recognise that I may not have selected the most appropriate wording or the most felicitous way of expressing myself, or indeed the correct rank within the police force. I am certainly open to persuasion on that point. I would simply note that I have borrowed wording from Section 42 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 which covers the authorisation of continued detention.
This Bill gives power to a constable—any constable—to grant consent to a manufacturer to continue to produce precursors when he or she has formed the suspicion that the customer who has ordered them will then use them in the course of the illicit drugs trade. At Second Reading I raised several concerns about the way in which this power might be used. I can now confirm that the Minister has satisfied my concerns on several of those points. I am grateful for the conversations I have had outwith the House with the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Parkside, who has been most co-operative on this point, and I believe that many of my worries have been met. However, there are some issues which remain unresolved.
266
I certainly agree with the Government that it is right that innocent manufacturers who are only seeking to co-operate with the police should be given statutory protection from prosecution. They should not be put at the mercy of administrative indulgence to escape prosecution. But I believe it is important that when we give the police statutory powers we should take care that they are both clearly and carefully defined so that we reduce the capacity for abuse as far as possible so that we are then able, first, to protect the public; secondly, to prevent corrupt police officers from misusing their powers—as I remarked at Second Reading, sadly we know that there are such officers, though those in charge of police forces much regret the fact—thirdly, to prevent collusion between corrupt police and corrupt manufacturers, though I hope that this would never happen—but, if it did, the Bill would give the manufacturer an absolute defence in that what would normally be considered illegal would suddenly become legal—and, fourthly, we should ensure that innocent and helpful manufacturers feel that they are not tainted by association with any corrupt manufacturer. It is important that we do not in any way discourage chemical manufacturers and those who work for them from reporting their suspicions to the police. I am concerned that, by the granting of such a wide power to any constable, we leave too much room for abuse. I am convinced that that is not what the Government wish to do.
At first I had considered a more prescriptive amendment which would have required the police officer to be acting in the course of his or her duty when granting the consent. I tabled such an amendment. I apologise to those noble Lords who saw that amendment and then saw it disappear. The amendment was superseded with a second one. That was simply because I took the opportunity to speak to representatives of the chemical industry. I also read carefully in Hansard the comments of the Minister at Second Reading and I also read carefully the letter from the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Parkside, which he was kind enough to send to me after Second Reading. I accepted the arguments put therein that my original amendment could have led to an unnecessary burden being imposed on the manufacturers and would not in itself have achieved my objective.
That objective is to ensure that such a serious step of granting consent by any constable to a manufacturer is taken only after serious consideration by senior police who have knowledge of this trade. I have already referred to the letter I received from the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Parkside. He made the point that it is unlikely that the kind of operation involved would be undertaken without careful preparation within the force involving comparatively senior officers. What I wish to do is to make sure of that happening rather than leave it to chance.
At this stage I would like to take the opportunity to pay tribute to the chemical manufacturers, first, for the efforts which are being made to protect against the diversion of chemicals into the illicit production of drugs and chemical weapons, but also for the fact that they co-operate fully with the Government wherever

267
possible and the police authorities in the controlled delivery of chemicals which are destined for use in the illicit production of drugs and chemical weapons where this is expected to lead to the apprehension and conviction of criminals involved in such trade or production.
That sounds somewhat stilted language but that is simply because it has been lifted word for word from the document that the Chemical Industries Association has produced. It is its voluntary code of practice which has been in operation since March 1994. I believe that it is a valuable tool which the industry has been using in its efforts to co-operate with the police and the Government. I have also read the comprehensive practical guide which it has produced to the trade controls affecting the United Kingdom chemical industry. I am aware that the chemical industry is in regular contact with NCIS and the Home Office Drugs Unit.
I would not wish to do anything to disrupt the bond of trust which I hope is continuing to be built up between those three parts of the triangle in trying to prevent the illicit production of drugs and the precursor chemicals which will provide drugs. No doubt anything that helps to clarify the legal position of manufacturers and to prevent innocent manufacturers from prosecution must he a positive and welcome step.
I fully support the intent behind this Bill, but I believe that the amendments I have tabled for today would bring proper security to the public, the police and manufacturers, which I believe is necessary.
I have also mentioned to both the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Parkside, and the Minister that there are other matters about which I still have some concerns. One of them is the position of the police constable who may grant consent for the chemical manufacturer to continue to manufacture precursors when the police have a suspicion they may be abused for the illicit drug trade. The question I have to ask is this: wherein lies the protection for the constable? Wherein lies his or her immunity from prosecution? Is it built into the substance of this Bill, which presumably will become an Act in the not too distant future? Is it built into the statute here, whereby the fact that we are saying that the chemical manufacturer may be given this permission means that we are allowing the police officer to grant it in the knowledge that the police also will not suffer prosecution? I simply ask that so it may be a matter of record in Hansard for the protection of the police taking part in such an operation.
The second matter is one that I raised at Second Reading. I simply mention it again in the hope that the Minister may make a clear statement on this point. It is the issue of entrapment within the specific context of the Bill. The Bill has the potential to encourage and facilitate the practice of entrapment in that chemical manufacturers may well be more ready to co-operate with the police in such situations if it is clear that by so doing they will not be committing an offence. Indeed, I would expect that it is the hope of the Government
268
and the Chemical Industries Association that the Bill will assist chemical manufacturers to come forward when otherwise they may not do so.
But that could have unfortunate and, I am sure, unintended results where, for example, it is the police who are inciting somebody to manufacture controlled drugs illegally. So we could have a situation—although I hope not—where a corrupt police officer incited a corrupt manufacturer to act. One could then end up with a situation whereby the manufacturer could say, if later apprehended, that he was given consent by a police officer.
That is the kind of situation which I am trying to avoid and why I have been seeking ways in which to put something on the face of the Bill which would allow the grave matter of a police officer granting consent to a manufacturer to be treated in a very serious way. Therefore, I eventually decided that the appropriate way of doing so would be to require that the police officer who granted such a consent should be of sufficiently senior rank that it was not a decision that could be taken on the hoof by any constable anywhere at any time in response to information received while on the streets. The decision should be taken at an operationally high level. As I have said, although I fully support the intentions behind the Bill and welcome its objectives, I have some concerns about the way in which it may operate and I therefore beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, for the careful way in which she has approached this matter, the research that she has undertaken and the inquiries that she has made, all with the intention of improving the Bill. Perhaps I may also express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Parkside, for writing to me on this matter last week. I regret that I was out of the country until yesterday and was therefore unable to reply.
I accept the argument that has been put forward by the noble Baroness that there is a need to limit the scope of the consent that can be given under the proposed new Section I A. I have followed her argument and I fully accept that her suggestion that the "constable" should be an officer,
"of the rank of superintendent or above",
is a sensible and practical way of approaching the problem. It gives confidence and protection to the manufacturer and avoids the corrupt situations to which the noble Baroness referred earlier. Accordingly, I support the amendment.
Viscount Waverley: While being delighted that precursors are receiving much-needed attention, I welcome the thrust of the Bill. I did not speak at earlier stages, for which I apologise, but I arrived back from central Asia only this afternoon.
Anything that will achieve a tightening of co-operation in controlled deliveries is to be welcomed; is much needed and is required by all participants at all levels in the fight against drugs with regard to the impact of precursors. I drew attention to that point on 9th December in an Unstarred Question.

269
However, I oppose the amendment. It is clear to me that those involved in the fight against drugs need potential bottlenecks, with their inherent delays, avoided to ensure overall effectiveness. There needs to be much greater input in decision-making at junior levels. I believe that the amendment would be viewed as unhelpful.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: We do not really understand the need for the amendment, in that the purpose of the clause is to protect the supplier of scheduled substances from prosecution in circumstances which would otherwise be unlawful. The supplier is helping the police to bring to justice an illicit producer of controlled drugs—or a potential producer. He has no interest in where the consent comes from.
I understand the concerns of the noble Baroness about entrapment and the use of agents provocateurs. If any operation involving the sale of precursor chemicals involved the use of covert policing techniques, it would in any case be likely to require authorisation at ACPO level. The noble Baroness will remember the precedents: Sections 50(3) and 51(5) of the Drug Trafficking Act 1994 and Section 12(2) of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989. Those are sufficiently serious precedents, to which I imagine that my noble friend turned for assistance. A police officer would not be committing an offence by granting the consent which the Bill allows.
I am very grateful for the support of the noble Viscount who, on a number of previous occasions, has either corresponded with me or asked Questions in your Lordships' House about this very important matter.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Evans of Parkside: I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, for the helpful discussions that we have had. I also congratulate her on the work that she has put into this small but very important subject. I have been very impressed by the work that she has done and the people she has contacted to ensure that everything humanly possible has been done to improve the Bill.
At Second Reading the noble Baroness referred to entrapment. This point was also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. A distinction must be drawn between entrapment and the actions of an agent provocateur. I understand that the guidelines of both the Home Office and the Association of Chief Police Officers make it quite clear that the police should not act as agents provocateurs to incite or counsel offences. That seems to be right and proper, and I am sure that the Committee agrees with it. But, subject to the safeguards provided by the court, I do not envisage similar objections to operations that help to catch individuals who intend to commit offences anyway. There have been examples in the past which have brought many serious criminals to justice. I suggest that the Bill does not give rise to questions of principle about the conduct of operations involving precursor chemicals which already apply to other operations, for example drug trafficking. To treat it differently would be inconsistent and unnecessary.
270
The main amendment would set the lowest threshold at which the police could give consent to the supply of scheduled substances in circumstances that would otherwise be unlawful. I join the noble Baroness in paying tribute to the chemical industry and individual companies which have worked very hard with the authorities to try to minimise the impact of the illegal drug trafficking which unfortunately goes on at too high a level in this and other countries. But it is unusual to specify in statute the rank at which particular action may be taken by the police. Such decisions are normally left to the discretion of chief officers of police. I understand that, in instances where a minimum rank is specified in statute, very important matters are at stake. For example, a superintendent is required to authorise detention without charge beyond 24 and up to 36 hours in the case of a serious arrestable offence.
It is important to remember that constables are entrusted with very considerable powers—for example, to stop and search people and vehicles and exercise powers of arrest. I also look to the Drug Trafficking Act 1994 and the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 as the best precedents to follow in this Bill. Both go only so far as to specify that the consent should be that of a constable. The noble Baroness explained that she was not absolutely wedded to superintendent as the rank at which consent should be given. At one level that is perhaps a good idea because, as a rank, superintendents are not thick on the ground. But it is worth noting the words of the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley. He referred to the danger of creating bottlenecks in issues of this kind. For example, presumably a search would have to be made for the particular officer who might not be closely involved in the particular affair.
Based on precedents in other legislation, I do not see the need for any rank other than constable to be specified. While I appreciate the tremendous work that she has put in, in all the circumstances I hope that the noble Baroness, who has listened to the Minister, and, I hope, my own modest contribution, will not seek to press her amendment at this stage.
Lord Burnham: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may draw his attention to the custom of the English language whereby for at least 500 years the word "constable" has been used, as I am sure he is aware, as the definition for anyone who is connected with the prosecution of the law, and that therefore the use of the word "constable" may well be considered to be valid and reasonable in the context of the Bill for that very reason.
However, we are now at the end of the 20th century. Many of us are accustomed to the use of "PC"—not politically correct in this context, but as a police constable. We consider that the constable is the man of no rank. He does not have three stripes on his arm and has not become a sergeant. Therefore in the context of the Bill, should not the noble Lord be a little more definite as to what is the police rank of the man who may be permitted to give authority in these cases?

271
Sadly we are only too familiar, in the case of the Metropolitan Police, of instances of police constables who may be considered to have misbehaved in one way or another, and possibly be corrupt. We might hope that someone of the rank of superintendent or above may be that much more responsible. We must not have someone who is corrupt who may misuse his rank or his power in such cases.
At a later stage in the Bill it might be desirable that further thought be given to that matter. I am sure that at this stage in the evening my noble friend will not press her amendment. However, perhaps further consideration could be given to the Bill's wording so that we define a little more carefully for the public what we mean and who are the persons who may have the authority to give a judgment as to whether permission should be given for any of these things to be used. I thank the noble Lord for giving way.
Lord Evans of Parkside: The noble Lord has made some important points. One of the things that I have discovered about this place which is different from the other place, is that, unlike the other place, we have the opportunity to have a Third Reading at which further amendments may be tabled leading to further discussion.
I note the point that the noble Lord made. The noble Lord referred to the Metropolitan Police and some of the dreadful and sad cases that we have seen in recent months. The noble Baroness referred also to that matter. When we think of corruption within the Metropolitan or any other police force, we should not think only of constables. Sadly and unfortunately, there has been corruption and convictions which have gone far beyond the rank of constable.
We read from time to time about drug trafficking and the illegal drugs trade. I have read that a million pounds or hundreds of thousands of pounds offered in bribes is not uncommon. I shall consider what the noble Lord said about the word "constable", and, if necessary, we
272
could return to this matter on Third Reading. I note what he said about the noble Baroness, but it will be for her to tell the Committee what she proposes to do.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to my noble friend for his intervention at this late hour, which I warmly welcome. I am pleased that he wishes us to look more carefully at definitions. One of the definitions that I might remind the Committee was raised on Second Reading was that of agent provocateur. I look at the Government Chief Whip in the context of the timing of the end of our business today, and the definition of that phrase becomes a little clearer.
I return to the substance of the Bill. The Minister referred to the fact that the Bill would protect the innocent chemical manufacturers and I greatly welcome that. However, I believe that there is a necessity to bear in mind the protection of the public, too. That is the reason why I brought forward this amendment. An action as important as granting consent to a manufacturer to continue to manufacture substances, suspecting that they will be used in an illegal drugs trade, is so serious that it ought to be taken in the full knowledge of a senior officer of the police force.
I do not intend to divide the House or to press the matter further. As the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Parkside, mentioned, there is in this House the prospect of Third Reading. I give a commitment that I do not intend to seek a Report stage. I have no wish to prevent the Bill from becoming law as quickly as possible so that it may protect the chemical manufacturers who are assisting the police. In bringing the amendment forward, I am trying to ensure that we also protect the public. 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.
Report received.

Tamar Bridge Bill
Brought from the Commons, read a first time and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes before eleven o'clock.

  UN Population Fund
  UN Population Fund
  Kosovo
  Kosovo
  Remploy: Annual Performance Agreement
  Remploy: Annual Performance Agreement
  University for Industry
  University for Industry
  Local Early Years Development Plans
  Local Early Years Development Plans
  Nursery Schools: Teacher Provision
  Nursery Schools: Teacher Provision
  Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland
  Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland
  Racial Equality in the Armed Forces
  Racial Equality in the Armed Forces
  Military Low Flying
  Military Low Flying
  Working Family Tax Credit
  Working Family Tax Credit
  Irish Citizens and Life Peerages
  Irish Citizens and Life Peerages
  Out of School Clubs
  Out of School Clubs
  Home Detention Curfew
  Home Detention Curfew
  Phoenix Data Quality: Report
  Phoenix Data Quality: Report
  Police and Fire Service Pension Schemes
  Police and Fire Service Pension Schemes
  Boards of Visitors: Funding
  Boards of Visitors: Funding
  Applications for Leave to Remain: New Forms
  Applications for Leave to Remain: New Forms
  Animal Procedures Committee
  Animal Procedures Committee
  NCIS and National Crime Squad
  NCIS and National Crime Squad
  Police Information Technology Organisation
  Police Information Technology Organisation
  Large Passenger Vehicles: Proposed Directive
  Large Passenger Vehicles: Proposed Directive
  Airlines: Free Operation within the EU
  Airlines: Free Operation within the EU
  Ordnance Survey: Performance Targets
  Ordnance Survey: Performance Targets
  Health and Safety Commission and Executive: Review
  Health and Safety Commission and Executive: Review
  Vehicle Fuel Cost Increases
  Vehicle Fuel Cost Increases
  Quieter Road Surfaces
  Quieter Road Surfaces
  Joint Waste Disposal Authorities
  Joint Waste Disposal Authorities
  Channel Tunnel Safety Authority Annual Report
  Channel Tunnel Safety Authority Annual Report
  HM Land Registry, PRO, Public Trust Office and Court Service: Performance Targets
  HM Land Registry, PRO, Public Trust Office and Court Service: Performance Targets
  Haemophiliacs: Hepatitis C and NHS Treatment
  Haemophiliacs: Hepatitis C and NHS Treatment
  Relative Risk Factor
  Relative Risk Factor
  Tuberculosis
  Tuberculosis
  Access Committee for England
  Access Committee for England