Sitting of 14 April 1999

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

BBC Parliamentary Coverage
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]
9.33 am
Mr. Denis MacShane: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, for giving us the opportunity to conduct this first Adjournment debate of the summer on the important issue of the BBC and its parliamentary coverage. The House has debated the subject several times in the past year; the debates have been good-humoured and reasonable. The House has left behind some hon. Members' old habits of Beeb-bashing, which was a good blood sport in the old days, but I believe that we all want to work together to ensure that the BBC fulfils its mandate and fully discharges its obligation, set out in its charter, to provide an adequate report of parliamentary proceedings.
We are conscious that it is not just the House that is in play; soon we shall have a Welsh Assembly and a Scottish Parliament, and there is a proposal for a Main Committee. The BBC will have to have regard to all the debates that take place in our different national forums, but I still maintain, as a strong supporter of the Government's constitutional programme, that what happens in this principal House, representing all the United Kingdom, remains paramount.
This morning, the BBC is holding a seminar on how to pay for itself—the usual chinwag between distinguished journalists. I received a nice note from the chairman of the governors, apologising for his absence from today's debate. The two Front-Bench spokespersons, my hon. Friend the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting and the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring), are present. I look forward to hearing what they have to say, but I hope that they will speak as Members of the House rather than as representatives of Government and Opposition.
What is the main concern that brings us to this morning's debate? It is, to paraphrase Oscar Wilde, that to lose one, or perhaps 1,000, listeners may be regarded as a misfortune, but to lose 3 million is unacceptable carelessness. That is what the BBC has done: it has lost 3 million listeners for parliamentary coverage.
I quote the BBC's figures, distributed in a document to some MPs before the Easter recess. Last year, "Yesterday in Parliament" had 3.13 million listeners; now it has 830,000. When "The Week in Westminster" was broadcast on Saturdays, it had 658,000 listeners. Now, in its graveyard slot of Thursday evening, it has 227,000 listeners. Taken together, that is a loss of 3 million listeners for parliamentary coverage on Radio 4.
140
Last year, when the subject was debated, we were solemnly told—in letters from the chairman and statements made by Mr. James Boyle on the radio and elsewhere—that people were bored with "Yesterday in Parliament", that they were not interested in parliamentary proceedings and that "Today" would gain plenty of new listeners between 8.30 and 9 o'clock as a result of taking Members of Parliament off the air. We now find that there has not been a single new listener to "Today". That is what we predicted. We now have proof. Today I ask the BBC to reverse last year's disastrous decision.
To be fair to the BBC, it has admitted that it got things wrong. In a letter that I received from the chairman, dated 9 April, he says:
"the BBC should be, and I believe is, big enough to put things right when mistakes have been made.
Two things are clear. The loss of listeners to 'Yesterday in Parliament' and 'The Week in Westminster' is much greater than we had expected—and that, whatever the causes of that loss, there is an unacceptable 'democratic deficit' which the BBC, with its special public service responsibilities, needs to address. The BBC must give appropriate prominence to coverage of parliamentary proceedings."
I welcome, as all of us do in our Lord's mansion, a sinner who is prepared to convert, and I hope that the chairman will put his words into practice. He also says:
"The Today"
programme
"figures, while steady, have not improved as a result of moving Yesterday in Parliament."
We also have an interesting statement from Mr. Tony Hall, head of BBC news, made at a Fabian seminar held in the House, now published by the Fabian Society—which, as a member of its executive committee, I advise all hon. Members to join. He says:
"we are all told—almost daily it seems—we live in a rapidly changing world. Some say audiences are no longer interested in politics. Our research for our Programme Strategy Review showed something very different. People still expect, and want, the BBC to provide full coverage of difficult subjects. 65% said it was important that the BBC reported what was happening in Parliament."
I invite Mr. Tony Hall, as it were, to put his editorial decisions as chief executive of BBC news where his mouth was and restore "Yesterday in Parliament" to the "Today" programme as it is listened to by the majority of listeners in this country, and put "The Week in Westminster" back on Saturday morning.
The BBC will argue, as it has argued in the document that it circulated to some Members of Parliament, that it has extended parliamentary coverage, via the Parliamentary channel, the internet, the Sunday night programme "The Westminster Hour", and "Westminster Live" in the afternoons, but none of those programmes, good as they are, can replace a linked journalistic narrative of what is said in this place, broadcast on FM.
Tony Hall refers to
"a time and place where people can…listen".
It is no use shunting us into a slot late on Sunday night, or into an obscure corner of the digital network; what people need is a report of Parliament on their daily morning newspaper of the air, the "Today" programme. Radio 5 does an excellent job, but it does not report parliamentary proceedings. It will rush off to the Ministry of Defence for a press conference, but to my knowledge it has never presented a proper report of what happens here.

141
The "time and place where people can listen" is not on long wave. In a document sent to us before the recess, the BBC admits that one British person in five has no access to it. Last year, in correspondence, Sir Christopher Bland said that he was willing to come to my house to retune my radio at 8.30 am. Although that was an extraordinarily generous offer—my children asked whether this would take place before or after their Weetopops!—I did not want to burden Sir Christopher with such raw contact with a Member of Parliament and his family.
Driving up to Rotherham and wanting to hear a report of the important debate on Kosovo that we had just before the recess, I tried to retune my radio from FM to long wave, but it was impossible. There I was on the Ml, being hounded by Eddie Stobart's and other lorries—lorries to left of me, lorries to right of me. Hon. Members know what the M1 is like in the mornings: lorry drivers rush to burn up their diesel fuel as fast as they can. Jabbing at my radio set trying to find long wave, I nearly caused a pile-up. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend the Whip, who is sitting on the Front Bench, thinks that a by-election in Rotherham would be a good or a bad thing; perhaps we can talk about that afterwards.
The situation is preposterous. As Mr. Hall says, our parliamentary proceedings should be broadcast at a time and place where people can listen. The purpose of this debate, however, is not just to make that fundamental demand, or simply to moan about the BBC; it is to defend the central role of parliamentary democracy.
It is currently fashionable to deride Parliament. I heard a woman journalist on Radio 4's "Any Questions" last Friday. I cannot remember her name, but in terms of flatulent, self-important pomposity she could knock any of us into a cocked hat. According to her, Parliament was not important, MPs were not important and nothing that happened in Parliament counted. Parliament has been written out of the national agenda. That, of course, is true for the fashionable intelligentsia—and some hon. Members play a political game by trying to present Parliament as the weak poodle of the Executive, although those of us who try desperately to stay on message but are always six months late know just how wrong they are. That is true even when we write, whatever language we happen to write in.
Parliament is central to democracy in this country. How we all wish that there had been one parliamentary debate for one hour in Belgrade to discuss the tragedy in that area. Parliament does hold the Executive to account. Of course it is not as exciting as it was earlier in the decade when there was no majority and Prime Ministers and Chancellors of the Exchequer were losing their jobs, but that is not the fault of Parliament or the Government. We must blame the British people, who in their wisdom decided to send a massive majority to the House of Commons two years ago.
In fact, since January there have been 35 ministerial statements in the House, and eight private notice questions. The Prime Minister has made four statements, and the Foreign Secretary seven. On nearly every day of the parliamentary week so far this year, a Minister—often the Prime Minister—has come to the House to justify, explain and account for his or her actions. Yesterday we engaged in an excellent exchange on Kosovo, and I
142
understand that we shall have a full debate on it next week. However, none of those debates, statements, questions and probes has been heard in the mornings on our "national newspaper of the air".
Parliament is also the testing ground for the Executive of the future. Let us not rubbish it too much. In 20 or 30 years, when Opposition Members have their chance of regaining power, today's young men and women, some of whom are sitting on the Opposition Benches now—they will, of course, be a little greyer then—will be called on to become the nation's Executive, partly on the basis of the way in which they have performed here. We are not the United States: we do not take academics, bankers or journalists and put them in the Cabinet. It is from this place, for good or ill, that those who make the big decisions—such as how 40 per cent. of our gross domestic product is used—are chosen.
Mr. David Winnick: Should not newspaper editors and owners—as well as the BBC—bear in mind another factor, in addition to the issues that my hon. Friend has rightly raised? Without this place, whatever blemishes and faults it has displayed over the centuries, the civil liberties of all our people—including those whom I have mentioned—would not last five minutes.
Mr. MacShane: I think that my hon. Friend speaks for all of us.
Parliament has another important aspect: it reflects the kaleidoscope of what we are as a people. Many Back Benchers, some of whom are present on both sides of the Chamber—I shall not lessen their reputations by naming them—make a significant contribution. They are the ones who

"Dare to be a Daniel,

Dare to stand alone,

Dare to have a purpose firm,

And dare to make it known."

As is well known, I am a team player—[HON. MEMBERS: "Which team?"]—but we need strong, independent Back-Bench voices. [Laughter.]
Mr. Nick Hawkins: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman's passionate job application, but I want to pick up a serious point that he has made. I have been listening carefully, and I agree with much of what he is saying.
In trying to persuade the BBC to return "Yesterday in Parliament" to its rightful place, should we not bear it in mind that the BBC's charter requires it to cover Parliament properly? That is what makes the BBC, as a public service broadcaster, entirely different from other broadcasting organisations. It is not allowed simply to chase ratings—and in any event, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, it has failed in its desperate attempt to do so.
Mr. MacShane: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right.
Parliament means more than just the Chamber, however. As a junior parliamentary private secretary at the Foreign Office, I can reveal a secret: the Select Committee system causes no little interest among Ministers. The Foreign Secretary has appeared more often

143
before the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs to answer questions than any of his predecessors. There is also the other place, where an interesting debate took place last night—reactionary and wrong, but interesting none the less. That too has been wiped off the airwaves.
Radio is important. There is a parliamentary television channel. I am going out live somewhere; it is possible to, as it were, chop me up, and it is difficult to make such an event come to life on television. This is a place for speaking. We are not really visual objects: we are losing our hair and gaining in girth. We are not pretty enough to appear on television, even those of us who have been treated with hormones or genetically modified. However, on radio we manage to tell a story, because radio is the medium of speech.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that originally "The Week in Westminster" was dedicated to the role of Back-Bench Members of Parliament, but that it has unfortunately changed, and now often carries what Front Benchers say?
Mr. MacShane: As a Back Bencher I find that deplorable, but I would be happy to take an intervention on the subject from the Front Bench.
We boast about having the best broadcasting system in the world. That may have been true once, but I wonder whether it is any longer. I watch political programmes in a number of other countries, and I often see a more mature, richer debate. The shop-worn Punch and Judy style of Messrs Paxman and Humphrys may be a barrier to understanding the new complexities of the modern world.
Unbelievably, we run a significant balance of trade deficit in broadcast programmes. This great nation of broadcasters imports far more than it exports. We do not have enough radio stations in the United Kingdom. We have 251. France has 858, Spain has 1,405, even the tiny Netherlands has 481, and Italy, where people obviously love talking, has more than 2,000. Three times as many people are employed in the radio business in Germany as in the UK, and twice as many in Italy. I want more broadcasting, more discussion of politics and more jobs to be created.
The row about parliamentary broadcasting, which has been rumbling for more than a year, masks a deeper malaise in the direction and management of the BBC. It is losing audiences, and many are asking whether it has lost its way. The licence fee is harder and harder to justify, certainly to many poor pensioners and the poorer members of my constituency.
The BBC was the first great nationalised industry in the long 20th-century British history of the belief that Government and Whitehall knew best what people wanted and what they should be given. As the BBC looks to the 21st century, I wonder whether it needs to reconsider its financing and institutional organisation.
Mr. John Maxton: My hon. Friend is being slightly unkind to the BBC. The major reason for the BBC's loss of audiences is the rapidly changing technological world, which is changing the nature of broadcasting. That makes possible a Parliamentary channel, and means that we will get digital
144
terrestrial television, satellite and cable. In the near future we will get digital radio, which will allow for debates in this place to be broadcast live on a continuous basis.
Mr. MacShane: I accept what my hon. Friend says, but he is arguing for quantity, whereas I am arguing for quality. My point was that the linked narration of "Yesterday in Parliament" makes the programme come to life, instead of its being a Hansard of television or radio that anyone can tune or plug into at any time of the day.
In conclusion, I appeal to the governors. They are responsible for the present position. It is clear that the BBC executives have shifted responsibility for this area to the governors. They do not usually intervene directly in programme making or editorial decisions, which is right. The executive of the BBC has let down the governors. It told the governors, and Sir Christopher came and told us, that removing Parliament from the airwaves on the FM "Today" programme would promote Radio 4, and that no one would notice the difference. They were wrong. Even Polly Toynbee, for example, who supported that decision before it was made, has written that she misses "Yesterday in Parliament." The executives were wrong 3 million times—the 3 million British citizens whom James Boyle, the Radio 4 controller, deprived of access to their own Parliament.
It is immensely hard for the British establishment to admit that it has got things wrong. It is harder still to put back in place what was successful. The BBC should be big enough to admit that it got something wrong, and to restore what worked and what serves the people of this country.
9.54 am
Mr. David Davis: I begin by declaring an interest, as the author of the "BBC Guide to Parliament." I should tell the House that any change in its circulation in recent years has nothing to do with what I shall argue today.
As is conventional, I congratulate the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) on his good fortune in getting the debate. He knows that my congratulations are more heartfelt than usual. I shall try to be as non-partisan in my comments as he was; I agree with 95 per cent. of what he said. I shall pick up the issue of the licence fee, with which he ended.
We all accept the ramifications of the licence fee. It may surprise some of my colleagues that as a relatively right-wing, free-market Tory Member of Parliament, I am entirely in favour of the licence fee, precisely because of its public service implications. It requires the BBC to inform, educate and entertain, in that order of priority—a point rarely made by the BBC.
That requirement has increased, not decreased, in importance with the proliferation of channels. We must remember that when there is greater pressure on the BBC to defend its market share. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) alluded to that in his intervention. Audience share reduction is inevitable, whatever the BBC does. It must recognise that fact and understand that that is not an excuse to abandon its core values.
I ask the Minister to pass on my congratulations to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, who recently, in response to a question from the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon),

145
my predecessor as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, stated his support for Alan Yentob's comment that quality comes before the mindless pursuit of audience. That matters in the present context, as elsewhere.
It is no bad thing that there is a dynamic tension between the wish to hang on to audience share and those core values. It prevents a subsidised monopoly organisation such as the BBC from making the Arts Council error of funding with taxpayers' money or, in this case, public service money, the very obscure—piles of bricks or preserved sheep—and invoking the public interest argument. Sensibly applied, dynamic tension prevents such a loss of common sense.
That dynamic tension also drives the BBC to try to square the circle by making good the popular and making the popular good. Over the years, the BBC has been extremely good at that. I come to my view of the BBC partly because, like the hon. Member for Rotherham, I have lived in another country. I have experienced the American television system and its lack of quality. I have seen the effect of the BBC not being present to drive standards up, as it has done in much of its coverage.
The idea of making the good popular and making the popular good demands from the BBC a creative response, rather than a managerial one, to its circulation problems. The error that we have witnessed over the past year results from a managerial response, rather than a creative response, to the problem of improving audience figures for the BBC.
Mr. Hawkins: As my right hon. Friend is speaking about managerial responses and excuses, will he comment on the fact that some of us who take an interest in BBC general and parliamentary broadcasting have been told that if "Yesterday in Parliament" is moved back to long wave, the programme will be shorter and fewer Back Benchers will be covered? Does my right hon. Friend agree that such a specious excuse and managerial response is nonsense, because if no one is hearing the programme anyway on long wave, it hardly matters how many Back Benchers are mentioned?
Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend is right. I shall return to the point at the end of my remarks. Many of the options proposed by the BBC in its so-called repentance—hardly a Damascene repentance—are facile and need imagination to improve them. The best way to meet the public service requirement and maintain audience levels is through a creative approach, not just a managerial one.
All public service requirements are important, but support for our democracy is pre-eminent, as the hon. Member for Cathcart said earlier.
Mr. Maxton: The right hon. Gentleman is attempting to say that the BBC is interested only in its ratings. If the BBC was not interested in broadcasting this place, it would not have taken over the bankrupt Parliamentary channel and made it into a BBC channel. That has cost the BBC a lot of licence payers' money without any return, because it is not putting advertising on the channel. The BBC has also created one of the best websites on the
146
internet—again free of charge and without advertising—with a lot of parliamentary coverage, which again it would not have done if it was interested only in ratings.
Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman has not been listening to what I have said. The BBC has maintained its core values in many respects, but it has not done so in this case. I shall come back to the Parliamentary channel later. It provides the BBC with an easy excuse. The ghettoisation of parliamentary coverage on the Parliamentary channel is not the answer. The channel has a role, which I shall elaborate shortly.
Ms Gisela Stuart: I should like to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to my correspondence with Sir Christopher Bland about the reporting on "Yesterday in Parliament" and "Today in Parliament" when my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister made a statement on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. The programme on the Wednesday evening was informative, but "Yesterday in Parliament" on the Thursday morning was almost a parody of "Week Ending", focusing on my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister's mispronouncing of words. When I drew Sir Christopher's attention to the fact that his responsibility as a public service broadcaster was not to entertain but to inform, he did not take my point. The issue is not just the time given to reporting of Parliament, but maintaining quality, which is where the BBC has lost its way.
Mr. Davis: I accept what the hon. Lady says, which leads me to the issue of the dumbing down of the treatment of politics, which the BBC is sensitive about. I wrote the book that I mentioned at the start of my speech because of the televising of Parliament. I was concerned that one of its effects might be to dumb down the treatment of Parliament. I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Rotherham that the Chamber is not a particularly televisual place, although I do not associate myself with his comments about the looks and telegenicity of his colleagues.
Television is inevitably a more superficial medium than radio. The attention span of somebody watching television is often much shorter than that of somebody listening to a radio programme. It would be unreasonable to expect producers not to reflect that in the design of their programmes. They are designing for their customers. That is what created the soundbite society. It was not the fault of venal producers or people whose aim was to corrupt our political process; it was a response to the pressures of a broadcast system.
That has affected the behaviour of Members of Parliament. One reason for some of the corruption of quality of contributions in this place is the fact that time spent crafting a soundbite will have more effect on public opinion than the same amount of time spent crafting the sort of logical argument that the House has historically been famous for.
That problem is reinforced by competition. In the age of the zapper, people can switch in a moment between many channels. That drives producers and makes them more prone to go for soundbites that will keep the attention of the audience. That tendency is further reinforced by all the other media available to audiences, including video tapes, computer games and the internet.

147
With volatile audiences, programmers are tempted, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) said, to focus on entertainment at the expense of information. That is a serious problem that has also infected radio.
However, that background makes radio even more important than it was before. It is our most accessible medium—our most democratic medium, if one likes. It is right that our most democratic medium should support our democracy. It is the most thoughtful medium. It is right that the most thoughtful medium should disseminate the argument, debate and logical exchanges that one hopes for from this House.
Radio 4 is the most vital component. It is the broadsheet broadcaster—the equivalent of The Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian and The Independent. It is the most important channel for opinion forming. To continue the comparison with broadsheets, the FM broadcasts at drive times—the "Today" programme, "The World at One" and "PM"—are the front page. The reporting of our democracy should be on the front page of the broadsheets. Moving "Yesterday in Parliament" from FM to long wave is equivalent to taking it off the front page and putting it in a pull-out supplement, making it an optional extra.
Mr. Keith Simpson: A throwaway supplement.
Mr. Davis: A throwaway supplement, as my hon. Friend suggests. An informed democracy is not an optional extra; it is a vital part of British society. The BBC's public service commitment should recognise that.
We take an informed democracy for granted in this country. It is not taken for granted in every country. Even now, people are fighting about the absence of democracy, as the hon. Member for Rotherham said. It is no coincidence that "Today in Parliament" was first broadcast spontaneously by the BBC with no pressure from Parliament in 1945 at the end of a war to defend democracy. We must not allow the priority given to democracy to slip away. The changes that the BBC has made to "Yesterday in Parliament" and "The Week in Westminster" are symptoms of complacency about the importance of democracy.
The changes also show a weak grasp of statistics. The 73 per cent. reduction in coverage for "Yesterday in Parliament" and the 65 per cent. reduction for "The Week in Westminster" were predictable. Labour Members predicted such outcomes and pointed out that the amount of parliamentary coverage in the 8 am to 9 am slot was increasing. The reduction was being caused by lifestyle changes. The same pattern was evident in August and on Mondays, when there was no parliamentary coverage.
Mr. Chris Mullin: We should be fair. Although, as the right hon. Gentleman says, the reduction was predictable, the scale of it is stunning. Nobody predicted a reduction on such a scale. In any other organisation heads would roll in similar circumstances. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that any heads will roll in this case, or does he think that those responsible will be promoted?
Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman is the Chairman of an eminent Select Committee and is much better at
148
scalp-hunting than I am. I shall not comment on whether heads will roll, but he is right to point out that the reduction has been dramatic. It is a serious affront to our democratic tradition in this country. The BBC should be worried about that.
We must assume that the BBC managers are intelligent people. They misinterpreted the statistics because they perceived politics as boring. That is an ignorant view. Anyone who sits in the House knows that this place can be the best theatre in the world. We are privileged to have free, front-rank seats in it.
Mr. Keith Simpson: Open all hours.
Mr. Davis: Unfortunately it is open all hours, and sometimes that shows.
Mr. MacShane: What about the quality of the comedy?
Mr. Davis: We have already heard a comedy turn this morning. I hope that the Whip, the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd), noted the quality of the comedy, if not of the team playing. On an extracted basis, "Yesterday in Parliament" and "Today in Parliament" could be exciting programmes. In many ways, the BBC did not make the most of them. It did not build its programming around them as it could have done; programming could have been built around "Today". The BBC should perhaps think about that creative response, rather than the simple jigsaw playing with the schedules that we have seen so far.
Politics is not so much boring as unfashionable, but democracy is not a designer accessory. It cannot be thrown aside because coverage of Parliament is unfashionable one year and fashionable the next.
What do I suggest in response? I reflect the point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins): the options that have been offered are limited. The comments that accompany the options are often in defiance of the facts; they are extraordinary. The minimum that should happen, as the hon. Member for Rotherham said, is a return to the status quo ante—before the switch to long wave: a simple recognition of the mistake that cost those enormous reductions in programme coverage.
The optimum is a recognition that, if the BBC can experiment in one direction to reduce coverage, it can experiment in the other to increase coverage. One of the arguments made to me by BBC management has been, "We have a much better programme on long wave." In that case, bring the whole programme back to FM: have a 20-minute programme and see whether that improves coverage, which might be the deduction from the statistics before the switch occurred.
Keep the extra 10 minutes and bring the programme back to FM. Perhaps the BBC should try to build up the programme that precedes it and put a little more around it to reflect what is reported there. Of course, I also agree with the hon. Member for Rotherham that the BBC should put "The Week in Westminster" back in its original slot.
I respond to the comments by the hon. Member for Cathcart about the Parliamentary channel. There is one area where the BBC, by its own criteria, although not necessarily by mine, could be said to have succeeded: the

149
replacement of "In Committee" with "The Westminster Hour." That at least has given more volume, although it is an apples and oranges comparison.
There has been great temptation on the part of BBC management to say, "We have the Parliamentary channel. We spent £20 million of public money"—not the BBC's money—"on that." I applaud that, but the Parliamentary channel, the website and the internet site appeal to a small set of political junkies, to put it bluntly—those who are so enthusiastic about politics that they will get the Hansard if it comes down to it. Democracy is not about the few; it is about the many, if I may parody a new Labour slogan. That is not a demonstration of my movement to new Labour. I say to the Whip: I am not such a team player.
If one is not careful, one ghettoises politics, but perhaps it is appropriate that "In Committee", which is of specialist interest, should go through those media, rather than through the Radio 4 medium. Perhaps that was a sensible change. I did not think so at the time, but I at least recognise it now.
Mr. Hawkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, even though we all welcome the BBC's purchase of the Parliamentary channel, that is in no way a substitute for bringing back "Yesterday in Parliament" to Radio 4 on FM? Many people need, in drive time, to hear what is being said, or what was said the day before, in this place. It is something that they can listen to on their way to work, during the most influential programme, when they are not able to be at home to watch the Parliamentary channel. Radio is a different medium because people hear it in their cars on their way to work, when thinking about the nation's affairs.
Mr. Davis: I agree with my hon. Friend. I cited the example of "In Committee" as a possible route to specialised delivery, but generally speaking, channel proliferation creates more, rather than less, demand for proper Radio 4 coverage. Indeed, as was pointed out in the debate in the other place on public service broadcasting standards, although one might have expected the digital revolution to deliver many new facts and data for people to make democratic judgments, it has not. It has generated a torrent of opinion, whirlpools of spin, which obscure, rather than reveal, the information that the public should have. That serves both the public and Parliament badly.
I move on from the narrow question of the specific parliamentary channels to the reporting of Parliament in the other news media and news programmes. The same problem applies with general news coverage. My primary example is "The World at One", the duration of which was cut. The aim of the cut was simply to increase audience figures—nothing else. It was not even audience figures for "The World at One"; it was audience figures for the drama programmes later in the day.
A core value of the BBC was sacrificed—the delivery of high-quality news coverage at a key point in the political and news day, namely, lunchtime—in pursuit of audience figures for later on. Indeed, it was theoretical because, again, the policy was proved wrong; it did not work.
Ten minutes may not sound much, but once the news headlines and the other structural parts of the programme have been knocked out, 10 minutes are more than a third
150
of the time for discussion. As a result, an important institution that the BBC has created has been seriously damaged.
I return to my key point. The highest priority in public service broadcasting and in the public service remit is to support an informed democracy; that is paramount. The arguments that we have heard from the BBC are arguments of choice and market. That is not what I want from public service broadcasting. The whole point about the core values is that they should provide what the market does not provide. If the BBC does not do that—I say it as a right-wing, free market Conservative; I am part of the continuity Conservative party—and if it goes down the market route, it will take great risks with its claim for a monopoly grant from the public at large.
The BBC has to make a big strategic choice. Does it want to live up to the standards of its charter? Does it want to do what it should to support our democracy, or does it want to chase audiences? If it wants to do the former, it will always have my backing for its licence fee and for the support that is given to it. If it wants to do the latter, it will lose that support and become just another large broadcasting corporation.
10.18 am
Mr. David Winnick: I say straight away that I am a fan of the BBC. It does a very good job. I do not want it to be privatised. As we know, when crises occur abroad, it is to the BBC World Service that many people rightly turn, so it is not a question of BBC baiting—if it were, I would not wish to be involved in such an exercise. However, I am critical, and have been from the beginning, of the reduced coverage of Parliament as a result of the changes.
I remember reading in the one of the Sunday newspapers, before there was any official notification of the change, that people did not want to listen to "Yesterday in Parliament" and were switching off in droves. I immediately recognised that the spin doctors were at work. I recognise the work of spin doctors, including the BBC's. Therefore, it did not come as a surprise when the official announcement was made about the intention to switch "Yesterday in Parliament" to long wave.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham and the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) referred to the vast reduction in the number of people listening to "Yesterday in Parliament". However, when the BBC spin doctors first told us that people were switching off in large numbers, I took the opportunity to find out the listening figures for the substitute items that went out when Parliament was in recess. If people were switching off in large numbers because they were bored by BBC reporting of Parliament, one would expect more people to listen to the substitute items. Surprise, surprise, almost exactly the same number of people listened to the substitute programmes—so much for BBC propaganda.
It has come as no surprise—certainly to me—that the "Today" programme has attracted no more listeners. As was revealed in previous discussions on the subject, the "Today" programme, like other radio programmes, inevitably loses listeners from eight o'clock onwards. There are a variety of reasons for that, the most obvious being that people go to work.

151
The document that has been circulated by the BBC states that the reduction in the audience of "Yesterday in Parliament" of 73 per cent.
"is broadly in line with the BBC's assessment in 1997."
I remember a meeting between the chairman of the BBC, the controller of Radio 4 and hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham. We were told that as a result of "Yesterday in Parliament" moving to long wave, there would inevitably be a reduction in listeners. That was not challenged, but there was no indication that the BBC was working on the assumption that the reduction would be anything like as vast as 73 per cent. So I do not accept for a moment what is written in the document and I doubt whether any hon. Member who has taken an interest in the subject is likely to do so.
I have met a number of people who no longer listen to "Yesterday in Parliament". As many of them are driving at the time, they are unlikely to start switching channels, as was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham and the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden. Of course they will not risk a pile-up by trying to switch to long wave. Indeed, one would have to be obsessed with parliamentary reporting to switch to long wave in order to listen to "Yesterday in Parliament"; but if it were broadcast on the wavelength that one was listening to, one would not switch off because "Yesterday in Parliament" was on. I am not surprised that there has been such reluctance to switch from FM to long wave.
The document also states that the BBC remains committed to parliamentary reporting. If you believe that, you will believe anything, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My impression is that although its charter commits the BBC to reporting Parliament, it is reluctant to do so as it believes that that is not the way to attract listeners. Therefore, for a long time prior to the change that we are now discussing, it has marginalised parliamentary reporting. The most obvious example of that was the decision to move "Today in Parliament" to long wave, resulting in the loss of a considerable number of listeners. In effect, those who are responsible for programmes are saying, "We have to report Parliament and there is no way that we can get out of it, but we shall marginalise it as much as we can." Hence "Yesterday in Parliament" has moved to long wave and "The Week in Westminster" has moved to Thursdays from Saturday mornings with a loss of some 65 per cent. of listeners. The only parliamentary programme which has not been marginalised is "Westminster Live" on BBC 2, which has quite healthy viewing figures for that time of day. It is screened three times a week around the time of Question Time.
I have been in correspondence with the chairman of the governors of the BBC and have pointed out that all our freedoms and civil liberties stem from this place. The reply that I received was along the lines that I was quite right—they did not challenge that in any way—but that it is also part of the freedom of the BBC as an organisation to decide how to carry out the reporting of Parliament. I do not question that. I would be the last person to tell the BBC that it had to report Parliament at certain times on certain channels. That would be wrong and inappropriate. It would be much along the same lines as telling the BBC how to report other matters such as the military intervention in Kosovo and the former Yugoslavia. I would not want the BBC to be dictated to
152
by the Government or Parliament, but I believe that it nevertheless has a responsibility adequately to report Parliament.
I regret that the broadsheets no longer report Parliament. Incidentally, I notice that occasionally when there is an important debate, exchange at Question Time or statement, The Times produces a summary of views, although it stopped doing that regularly some years ago. I hope that The Times and the other broadsheets continue with that.
A public service broadcasting organisation such as the BBC has a duty and responsibility adequately to report this place. It is not a matter of our egos. I know the cynical feeling in the BBC—not necessarily among the journalists, but among those who control programmes—that it is a matter of our listening to our own voices, but it cannot be trivialised in that way. We want those who want to listen to what is happening here and who recognise the importance of the decisions that are taken in both Houses to have the opportunity to do so; such reporting should not be marginalised as it has been and continues to be.
In conclusion, whatever they decide on this matter, the governors of the BBC should show firm leadership and demonstrate that they recognise that there should be adequate reporting of Parliament. If there is disagreement from the director general and the controller of Radio 4, the governors should lay down the line. It is not for us to do so, but for the governors of the BBC. I hope that they will do what they have not done recently and will face up to their responsibilities as so many of us want them to do.
10.28 am
Mr. Paul Tyler: I congratulate the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) on introducing the debate. He will not be surprised that I agree with everything he said this morning as we have often shared this platform with other hon. Members who have spoken this morning and those who no doubt would like to speak if there is time. We have become a well loved regular cast on the subject in the past year. Maybe the BBC will think up a new soap opera in which we can be incorporated.
I should like to endorse a few points that have already been made. The first is the comparison between television and radio. A few seconds after a television appearance, 85 per cent. of the retained memories of what has happened relate to how we look. The great advantage of radio is that one cannot do that, so people concentrate more on the content of what has been said. As the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) said, radio is by far the better medium for getting across a complicated, many-faceted argument. That is what this place is all about. It is no coincidence that radio treats our debates far more effectively—or can do—than television. For that reason, all hon. Members who have spoken this morning have rightly concentrated on the three major programmes: "Yesterday in Parliament", "Today in Parliament" and "The Week in Westminster". Radio is where one may develop an argument, or follow its twists and turns without being distracted by the visuals.
The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden said that there should be a dynamic tension between the nation's assembly and the nation's primary broadcaster. That is right, and no hon. Member is suggesting that we

153
should be dictating to the BBC. However, it has to be accepted that the BBC's action last year was taken against all the advice that was being offered, not only by politicians but by a great many other professionals, both within and outside the BBC. I very much welcome the fact that the chairman now says that the BBC is prepared to accept that it made a major mistake. The House has to help the BBC to restore its primacy in public service broadcasting.
The Government could help us in performing that role. I hope that, in her reply, the Minister will deal with the point that there is a vicious circle. If Ministers are prepared to go on the "Today" programme and state in detail what they will later in the day tell the House of Commons, then later in the day, no reporter, journalist or broadcaster will cover the matter in the same detail. It is a vicious circle.
If statements are made outside the House—the previous Government were just as guilty of press-release politics as the current one; it is a tendency of which all Ministers should be aware—that is the way it will go. However good John Humphrys and Jeremy Paxman may be in questioning the statements of Minister or of Opposition spokesmen, they cannot perform the same function as Parliament. That is what we are paid to do. The main function of this place is to scrutinise, analyse and probe what is being said.
As the hon. Member for Rotherham said, since January, 35 statements have been made in the House. It is a remarkable number, and I welcome it—as this is where Government statements should be made—but I wonder how many of them were covered effectively by the BBC. I suspect that very few of them were.
Labour Back Benchers have a much better opportunity in this place of seeing, probing and questioning what the Government are doing than they ever will in the studios. All too often, studio set-ups comprise only a couple of people with distinctly different, usually partisan viewpoints, and do not necessarily deal with the substance of the issue.
Hon. Members have already mentioned in some detail the BBC's public service and charter obligations. I believe that Ministers also have an obligation to recognise that this is the place where major statements should be first made.
Hon. Members have also mentioned the mindset that lay behind the changes. I recall that, in both our previous debates—in March, in the debate initiated by the hon. Member for Rotherham, and in October, in my own debate—all hon. Members stressed that we were concerned not only about what the BBC was doing, but about why it was doing it. It was as if the BBC was treating the proceedings in this place as an esoteric, odd and peculiar hobby of a very few people. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden mentioned ghettoisation.
The changes seemed to reflect a belief that stamp collecting, underwater line-dancing or following the proceedings of Parliament could appropriately be pushed into a little corner, so those who were "obsessed with Parliament"—as the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said—could go away and listen to their heart's content. That is not what Parliament is about.
154
Parliament is—or it should be—where it all happens. This is where the Government are held to account, and where Ministers and Opposition parties' spokesmen are tested. If those at the BBC do not realise that, they have not read what was said when the new charter was considered by Parliament, or what Ministers said about the BBC at every stage from 1946 onwards, to which reference has already been made.
I shall be as brief as possible, as I know that two important speeches are yet to be made. I should, therefore, say what I think that the BBC could do to redress the situation. Of course it would be great to return to the previous position, with the enhancement that the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden mentioned. However, I should like to offer option 12, which I believe really would deal with the "unacceptable democratic deficit" to which the BBC chairman referred.
"The Week in Westminster" must go to the end of the week; it is ludicrous in its current slot. If there is an extremely important debate on Friday, how will it be dealt with? Let us face the fact that, as we all know, private Members' business on Fridays can be extremely important to very many constituents. The programme must go back to Saturday. Moreover, I believe that it fits much better in the Saturday scheduling than in most other slots.
I should be reconciled to leaving "Today in Parliament" in the evening slot, on long wave. At that time in the evening, there is a rather specialist audience, and there are many other competing audiences. I would not therefore go to the stake to have it on both FM and long wave.
As hon. Members have already said, the critical programme is "Yesterday in Parliament". The point about loss of audience—which would have happened regardless of what was put in the slot—has been well covered. However, the audience that is retained is very much the informed audience that wants to be better informed, and the programme naturally follows on from the "Today" programme.
I suggest that, to ensure that there is still choice in that time slot, which the BBC says is so important, the BBC should let those who want to remain with John Humphrys and the "Today" programme go to long wave; that would really test it. If—as we are being told by the BBC—everyone wants to go with "Today" and does not want to stay with us, and if, as is suggested, the debate in the studio is far more interesting than the debate in this place, let "Today" go to long wave. That will retain choice.
If the BBC is determined that there must be choice at 8.30 am, let it make the choice offered by my suggestion, and we shall test which is the better solution. I think that the suggestion, as option 12, makes better sense than all the other 11 options offered in the paper. It would not only preserve choice, but demonstrate, once and for all, what that particular audience—from 8.30 am to 9 am, in the full period to just before the news—prefers.
Before very long, parliamentarians in both Houses will be asked to deal with the future role and responsibility of the BBC. Unless the BBC's chairman and governors respond positively to the concerns being expressed in this place, and by many other people outside it, and restore Parliament to its rightful place in the BBC's schedules, they will find us a not very sympathetic audience when they come cap in hand.
10.37 am
Mr. Stephen Pound: I should like, first, to state formally that, in his brief time left on the Back Benches, I am delighted to be associated with and to support my hon. and extremely ambitious Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) on this matter—despite his slightly unkind remarks about those of us who prefer to appear on the nonvisual medium. As someone who has frequently been told that he has an excellent face for radio, I am somewhat sensitive about comments about avoirdupois and lack of hair. Nevertheless, I support my hon. Friend on the matter. I have also been amazed by the uniformity of opinion and agreement on the issue on both sides of the House.
The BBC has arrived at a perhaps uniquely British compromise in which it, in exchange for a unique funding mechanism, provides a unique facility and service. It is an odd arrangement, which is not immediately replicable in other countries, but it has worked extremely well. However, as is transparently obvious to all of us, it is not working now. If we are to assume that entertainment is all and that education is nothing, and to follow the Gadarene swine down market—dumbing down, as the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) said—the future is indeed horrible.
I have seen the future. On St. Patrick's day, I found myself in Ottawa, with the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale)—who is temporarily out of the Chamber—and we were treated to the sight of the Canadian Parliament in session. Canada has decided to have the full warts-and-all coverage. The Canadian Parliament delights in leaping to its feet and applauding certain speeches. The element of partisan activity on both sides of the Chamber is such that what little debate could possibly be discerned amidst the clamour and clapping is completely lost by ludicrous and antagonistic behaviour.
There is a lesson for us there. Whereas it is right and proper for us to criticise the BBC, we also have to accept some share of responsibility. Although incidents such as punching Ministers and waving the Mace around are, fortunately, few and far between, there have been occasions—far be it from me to enumerate them, although I am sure that they are known to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—when the behaviour of right. and hon. Members, and even of hon. and learned Members, has been such as to participate in a dumbing-down process. We have a certain responsibility there.
The important point is the unique status of the British Broadcasting Committee—
Mr. MacShane: Corporation.
Mr. Pound: A lovely 1950s word that I had forgotten for a moment. The present ethos is demonstrably wrong, as has been explained today. I was greatly impressed by the speech of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden—almost as much as I was impressed by my hon. and ambitious Friend the Member for Rotherham. However, the right hon. Gentleman made precisely the right point. If we are to support the BBC, the BBC must live up to its public service obligations.
It is not possible to live on a glorious past and an element of residual national affection, as that leads to no future. In any case, that job description has been taken by the Liberal Democratic party. All who have spoken today
156
have spoken as candid friends. It might be said, "May the Lord spare me from my candid friends", but in this case, we are speaking not in anger. but more in sorrow.
It is not a question of political junkies. I appreciate that the Leader of the Opposition, as a schoolboy in the north of England—
Mr. MacShane: Rotherham.
Mr. Pound: I was trying to avoid saying that. Whereas the rest of us subscribed to The Beano or to Fulham football club's magazine, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) subscribed to Hansard. While the rest of us employed our evenings in far more useful purposes, he would thumb his way through the Official Report. There are few people like that. However, this is not about those few people who are obsessed with the minutiae.
It is a question of democratic accountability. This is about the forum of the nation; the place where decisions are taken that affect the lives of every single man, woman and child in these islands. This is the place where we act and speak on behalf of the people of this nation. We have a duty to be as open and transparent as possible in our activities in this House. The BBC has a concomitant duty to reflect that to the nation. That is part of democracy, and part of the process that makes this place work and makes the nation work.
Moving from what I still think of as medium wave to long wave may seem an arcane point, but it is symbolic, and it is symptomatic of a major problem. It is our duty, as has been expressed today, to draw the attention of the BBC to this matter, and to implore it and ask it respectfully—maybe with a hint of anger—to think again. It makes no sense, even in the terms by which the BBC defines its objectives: an increase in audience.
I am delighted to support my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham. I hope that the uniformity of opinion expressed today will be matched and responded to generously by the BBC.
10.43 am
Mr. Richard Spring: I congratulate the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) on securing the debate, and on bringing the issue of the BBC's parliamentary coverage once again into the spotlight. There have been a number of excellent contributions, not least from my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) in a most thoughtful speech. I was particularly struck by his point about the potential ghettoisation of parliamentary coverage.
The audience measurements undertaken by Radio Joint Audience Research tell us that there has been a catastrophic drop in audiences for the parliamentary flagship programmes "The Week in Westminster", down by 65 per cent., and "Yesterday in Parliament", down by 73 per cent. Yet the BBC has failed to capture new listeners for the lengthened "Today" programme from 8.30 to 9 am.
In March 1998, the current changes were imminent. A number of journalists, many hon. Members and Madam Speaker forcefully tried to tell the BBC that the proposed changes would backfire. Indeed, Madam Speaker placed the correspondence on this subject with the chairman of

157
the BBC in the House of Commons Library. On the issue, the BBC supplied answers to what it described as "frequently asked questions". One such question was:
"Does this package of proposals represent an effort to sideline parliamentary coverage, which the BBC regards as unpopular?"
The answer was:
"Not at all. Our parliamentary coverage on Radio 4 will increase by an hour-and-a-quarter a week when Parliament is in session in the new schedule. Far from telling us that the Radio 4 audience doesn't appreciate politics, our review told us that parliamentary programmes were highly valued by the audience, and that Radio 4 listeners are particularly receptive to this sort of programming. What we have attempted to do with the new schedule is to enhance our coverage and place it where its audience will appreciate it most."
Indeed. Such was the level of appreciation that three out of four listeners to "Yesterday in Parliament" simply switched off. Now we are invited, after 12 months, to respond to further consultations by the BBC.
What happened last time? On the core programmes for parliamentary coverage, the BBC was clearly warned what would happen, but went ahead. It amuses me to think of the sort of interview that John Humphrys or Jeremy Paxman might conduct on such points. Nowhere in the covering letter from the BBC, dated 24 March, or in the consultation document itself do we see the word "regret", or even "disappointment". I am therefore glad that the hon. Member for Rotherham read out that letter from the BBC chairman.
The conclusion to the latest consultation says:
"The BBC approaches this review with an open mind and will give careful consideration to the outcome of the consultation exercise. At present, following assessment of the available audience research, the BBC considers that it may be necessary to re-balance, to some extent, the need for Radio 4 to offer an attractive choice of listening in a crowded radio market with the BBC's obligations to give appropriate prominence to coverage of parliamentary proceedings as a public service. The BBC is open to change and wishes to identify the best way of reconciling the competing interests of different audiences."
I urge hon. Members to react constructively to the challenge and to let the BBC know their views. This is an opportunity that must be grasped, and we have heard some interesting viewpoints today, not least from the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler).
The BBC occupies a central place in the history and affections of the British people. It enjoys a considerable reputation abroad. Undoubtedly, there are many in the Balkans who today are being given a different and accurate viewpoint through the incomparable World Service. British actors and actresses are enjoying extraordinary acclaim. In the past decade, we have seen an upsurge of creative success in Britain. Dramas put on by the BBC have been quite brilliant; "Great Expectations" has got off to an excellent start. There is much to be proud of.
The BBC must face up to the digital challenge. As part of that, I recently saw for myself its "Where's Q?" digital archive facility, which is unique and fascinating. Digitalisation is here to stay, and I applaud the BBC for its response. The BBC's revamped annual report and accounts is a first-rate and informative document.
As far as political coverage is concerned, for many the day begins with "Today" and ends with "Newsnight"; required listening for a considerable number of people
158
interested in public affairs. Additionally, "Any Questions" presents a lively range of political views on the radio each Friday evening. Equally, "Question Time" provides similar high-quality debate and argument on television.
The BBC is charged with a special public service responsibility. We have a Government with a large majority: an Executive that is all-powerful. Madam Speaker has frequently had to complain about announcements being made outside the House. In that atmosphere, the BBC must be very cautious. Several BBC employees have found jobs with the Government. Complaints have been made by senior journalists, notably Michael Brunson of ITN, about bullying by the Government.
Parliament provides a scrutiny of an all-powerful Executive, through oral or written questions, debates in the Chamber or Select Committee proceedings. The reporting of Parliament, especially in current circumstances, is extremely important. It is true that we are involved in a war although, mercifully, it has not affected us directly in this country.
At times of crisis, Parliament becomes the focal point of the nation. Today we do not have such terrible problems as mass unemployment or a realistic threat of global nuclear war, so on the whole the British people can wear their politics lightly, but that will inevitably change one day, in circumstances that we cannot foresee.
Parliament may be seen by many as boring, but a lot of important elements in life may not be headline-grabbing. Parliamentary coverage cannot be evaluated on its entertainment appeal. The BBC has made a mistake in its parliamentary coverage. In a rapidly changing marketplace, any response will not be easy to implement. Listeners and viewers are being given a multitude of choices, but it is none the less up to us to ensure that the BBC's public responsibility to Parliament and to the people of Britain whom we seek to protect is properly upheld.
I hope that, this time, the BBC will understand that. It is up to us to respond constructively and ensure that the central importance of our parliamentary proceedings is restored. I hope that today's debate will help the BBC in that process.
10.52 am
The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) for securing this important debate. It is his second debate of this kind, and we are all extremely grateful to him for giving us the opportunity to air our views. I hope that the BBC will cover this debate. I am only sorry that it is not able to be present this morning. I understand that it is holding a seminar to discuss its funding. Perhaps that is appropriate in the circumstances.
My hon. Friend said that he did not want us to engage in Beeb-bashing. I endorse that view. It is important that we work together with the BBC, and I welcome its acknowledgement that it may have taken the wrong decision. We all welcome the new spirit of consultation. I hope that all hon. Members will respond to that consultation.
My hon. Friend said that he hoped that I would not only give the Government's position but speak personally. There is a longstanding convention that broadcasting

159
Ministers avoid comment on programming issues, and I do not want to ignore that convention, but the BBC's governing instruments, the royal charter and agreement, which set the overall framework for its activities say specifically that the BBC shall
"undertake an appropriate process of public consultation prior to making any material change to the nature of the Home Service."
That means that the BBC has a duty to listen to the consumer.
The agreement also contains a specific programming requirement, first introduced in 1947, that the corporation
"shall transmit an impartial account day by day prepared by professional reporters of the proceedings in both Houses of Parliament."
Many hon. Members have mentioned the reduction in listeners following the changes, but the figures bear repeating. The BBC says that, although the total number of hours of parliamentary coverage on Radio 4 has increased, the overall reach is down by 26 per cent., with sharp falls in audience figures for "Yesterday in Parliament", which is down 73 per cent., from 3.13 million in 1997 to 830,000 in 1998, and "The Week in Westminster", down 65 per cent. from 658,000 to 227,000.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) raised the change in the arrangements for regional political editors in a previous Adjournment debate. I am sure that hon. Members of all parties still have some concern about that change. As a constituency Member, I am not entirely clear who my regional political editor is.
The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) made the point that the BBC is not there merely to chase ratings and that it has a requirement under its charter to ensure that our proceedings are properly covered. He reminded us that the charter is up for renewal in 2006, and I am glad that we have had the opportunity to start the debate on that this morning.
The hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) mentioned the fact that "The Week in Westminster" now seems to be a vehicle for Front Benchers. Like this debate, which is very much for Back Benchers—that is why I have not sought to speak for too long—"The Week in Westminster" should be an opportunity for Back Benchers to ensure that the country can hear what they are doing on behalf of their constituents.
160
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) spoke of the broadcasting revolution that is taking place and suggested that perhaps we had not taken it into account. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis), who is very knowledgable on the subject, rightly spoke of the importance of the BBC's duty to inform, educate and entertain—in that order—and suggested that, with the proliferation of channels, that duty was more important than ever.
Mr. Roger Gale: Other countries have dedicated parliamentary channels, such as C-Span in America and C-Pac in Canada, and the BBC has introduced its Parliamentary channel. Is not it a little hypocritical of us to criticise the BBC, when we can get Sky Sports on the Palace of Westminster circuit, but not the Parliamentary channel? Should we not do something about that?
Janet Anderson: I take note of that contribution.
The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden made the point that it is almost inevitable that the BBC's audience share will reduce, and that must be taken on board. I thank him for his compliments to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who has supported the remarks of Mr. Alan Yentob, who said that quality must come before audience-chasing. Next month, my right hon. Friend and I will have meetings with the BBC's joint boards. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) said that a reduction in listeners may have been predictable but the size of the reduction was stunning.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) is a great supporter of the BBC. When I first took on this job, one of the first things that I learned is that, on important state occasions, people always turn to the BBC for coverage. That is, quite rightly, how the BBC is regarded.
I welcome the BBC's commitment to consult on the changes. 1 hope that it will hear the message that the House has sent this morning. It is a loud and clear message and I hope that the BBC will take to heart the gist—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. It is time for our next debate.

Wildlife
11 am
Mr. Colin Breed: I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise the issue of wildlife protection and in particular the current state of many of our sites of special scientific interest—SSSIs. The debate is most relevant to my constituency. I have received a number of letters from constituents as a number of extremely important Cornish SSSIs are under threat.
SSSIs form the core of Britain's natural heritage—the so-called crown jewels—and contain a significant proportion of the remaining rare habitats and species in the United Kingdom; for example, 90 per cent. of the remaining reed beds in the UK have an SSSI designation. At the time, they were properly designated, but far too often their subsequent protection has been woeful. The protection of SSSIs is vital, not only to safeguard part of our natural heritage, but to ensure that the UK fulfils its international commitments under EU birds and habitats directives, the Ramsar convention on the conservation of wetlands of international importance and the convention on biological diversity. Once destroyed, wildlife habitats that have sometimes taken thousands of years to evolve can never be replaced.
When such habitats disappear, so does the wildlife that depends on them. The last fragments of woods, bogs, heathlands and meadows are havens that sustain many of our threatened animals and plants. There are a number of cases of damage to SSSIs that should be brought to the Minister's attention. The Lynher estuary is an important SSSI with a total of 687 hectares in south-east Cornwall—my constituency. The area is of national importance because of its role as a major site for wintering birds. It is estimated that the site is used by 6,000 wild fowl and about 10,000 waders, and is an important roosting area for 5,000 widgeon. However, the site has been badly damaged by intrusive agricultural activities and infilling.
To take a more recent example, during the past few weeks at Rosenannon bog and downs near Bodmin in Cornwall, an SSSI has been damaged by fire and more than half of the site has been severely damaged. The site was a crucial breeding ground for bird species such as skylark and stonechat and has been partially destroyed. It is suspected that the fire was caused by arson, although we do not know yet. No prosecutions have been brought, nor could they have been, because damage to the SSSI was caused by a third party rather than by the owner or occupier.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: In the early 1980s, I was a member of the Wildlife and Countryside Bill Committee in which the question of prosecutions arose. We spent 100 hours in Committee discussing these matters. From his experience, is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 is inadequate, or is it that the legal authorities do not bother to prosecute—or do not feel like prosecuting—under the complex regulations?
Mr. Breed: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution, which is obviously based on his great experience. There have been no prosecutions, but I am not certain whether that is because of the inadequacy of the law or the inactivity of those prosecuting. It is a
162
difficult matter. The evidence that needs to be obtained is part of the problem, but sometimes the prosecuting authorities consider that the degree of work and the costs involved are out of all proportion to the likelihood of obtaining a successful prosecution. Even then, the penalties that may be inflicted might not reflect the costs involved.
Surprisingly, it is not currently an offence for a third party to damage an SSSI: for example, fly tipping, which is unfortunately happening more often; the use of off-road vehicles, which is increasing in popularity; and sometimes arson, may well be illegal under other forms of legislation, but they do not currently constitute an offence of causing damage to SSSIs. There seems to be a loophole in the law that could be closed. However, even in cases where the damage is caused by the owner or occupier of the land, there is currently no way of prosecuting the offender or, more importantly, of preventing the damage from happening to the site in the first place.
On one occasion, a landowner wanted to plough an SSSI to grow flax. He sent his proposal to English Nature, but English Nature could only try to persuade that farmer not to carry out his plan. Unfortunately, he decided to plough the area regardless, causing severe damage and English Nature had no power to prevent that. Without the teeth needed to enforce protection of that site, all that English Nature could do was to sit by and watch another precious SSSI being raped for commercial interest. One of the most significant factors in that case was that of "forgone payments". Such payments are made to landowners as compensation for not carrying out an activity such as ploughing up land, as opposed to financial incentives to help landowners manage triple SSSIs positively. The compensation system must be changed to reflect what we really want—that is positive management, not passive inactivity.
The picture that I have presented of some parts of the south-west is certainly not unique. There are almost 5,000 SSSIs in England and Wales, and during the past six years there have been more than 2,000 cases of damage to those sites; 45 per cent. of all SSSIs in England are considered to be in an "unfavourable conservation status". Not only are the existing SSSIs in decline, but in England and Wales at least 46 sites have lost the SSSI status they had gained since 1981.
Every year, the Government statutory wildlife agencies publish data in reports that indicate damage to SSSIs in the previous year. On average, more than 300 sites are lost or damaged every year. SSSIs are not being protected from damage, yet they represent some of the most significant environmental sites in the UK; they are identified as "special", but are afforded little, if any, real protection to ensure that they can sustain that status.

The monitoring and gathering of data is one of the few things that the Government statutory wildlife agencies can do where SSSIs are concerned. However, there is no systematic monitoring of those sites. Information about damage is gathered only when local agency teams become aware of problems, so large amounts of damage often remain unrecorded and it is likely that the actual amount of damage will probably be much worse than the recorded figures. That situation is made even worse because conservation agency staff can inspect SSSIs only with the permission of the owner. Clearly, that must be changed if proper monitoring and early action are to be capable of implementation.

163
Ceredigion county council was responsible for the destruction of an SSSI near Goginan, east of Aberystwyth. Reclamation work on an old mine working had been agreed within strict conditions, yet, in breach of the conditions, a fence was moved allowing additional excavations and subsequently the destruction of rare lichens. The council escaped prosecution simply because its officials entered the site and carried out the work without the written authority of the landowner. That case shows how ludicrous the current situation is, when a third party can escape prosecution in that manner. Of course, it does nothing to deter other potential offenders from damaging SSSIs.
One of the most significant threats to SSSIs is the growing problem of water abstraction and pollution. Friends of the Earth estimate that 338 sites are under threat from loss of water. About one third of SSSIs can be described as wetlands, which are clearly damaged by water shortage and pollution. The damage may not be direct. Miles upstream, water may have been polluted, diverted or extracted with the result of enormous damage to an SSSI or an important wetland.
Development and construction is another major threat, currently affecting an estimated 220 sites. Sometimes, the economic and structural needs of a region clearly warrant new development. My part of the country has just received objective 1 status, and we want real economic growth. However, the environmental costs of such projects must be considered.
I sat on the Standing Committee that scrutinised the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998, and I believed that the environmental aspects of RDA work should be given much higher priority and should carry more weight in the planning process. Specifically, SSSIs should be given strong and measurable indicators of environmental value so that a fair balance of overall costs and benefits can be struck against the indicators of a region's economic needs before development takes place.
Every day, a site is damaged or lost for good. Delay means destruction of more precious sites, and public concern is coming to a head. Only yesterday, wildlife organisations delivered 250,000 pledges calling for urgent action to prevent endangered wildlife to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. The support in the country for action is reflected in the House, as noted yesterday at Question Time by the Minister for the Environment. A majority of MPs have signed early-day motion 11 to support the Wildlife Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper). Many Members welcomed Labour's manifesto commitment to greater protection of wildlife, but that commitment has not yet been fulfilled in legislation.
The Government's Green Paper does not go as far as another private Member's Bill that the Labour party supported when in Opposition. The consultation paper, "Sites of Special Scientific Interest: Better Protection and Management", is welcome, but it does not mention some serious threats to wildlife sites. The failure to recognise the problems of peat extraction and old mineral permissions are worrying. Permissions, often given many years ago and sometimes poorly drafted, are being ruthlessly exploited by greedy commercial concerns. We continue to condone the destruction of lowland raised peat bogs such as Thorne moor and Hatfield moor, although they are some of our best wildlife habitats. If the
164
whole Green Paper became law, it would still not stop destruction of those sites by the peat industry, although I recognise the difficulties and costs of compensation.
The Green Paper is a welcome move in the right direction. It contains proposals to require restoration of an SSSI after it has been deliberately damaged. However, the proposals do not solve real problems on the ground. The legal changes proposed signal only modest change that will not meet the need for comprehensive protection. Furthermore, the timetable for action is inadequate. Changes must be made now to protect existing untouched SSSIs and to help to restore sites that have been damaged.
SSSIs are under threat in all parts of the country. That is bad enough, but it is worse that the perpetrators of the damage get away scot free and without prosecution. We are often critical of environmental damage in less developed countries, such as Brazil. Indeed, some hon. Members are today visiting South America. In our own prosperous country, however, SSSIs remain largely unprotected as they cannot be valued by any conventional economic price formula. The Members visiting South America might have found some desecration a little closer to home.
There is enormous public and parliamentary support for statutory protection of our wildlife and countryside. The Government must act to give important wildlife areas legal protection. They are making the right noises, but the consultation paper does not cover all the important threats. Meanwhile, time is of the essence. More sites are being damaged every day.
Mr. Alan Clark: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman and to the House for arriving a couple of minutes late for the debate.
The hon. Gentleman is entirely right to say that protection must be extended to SSSIs, and support for early-day motion 11 testifies to the House's view. However, there must be penalties and prosecutions if protection is violated. The person or company who violates sites must be susceptible to truly penal redress.
Often, the stakes are so high and the speculative possibilities of extraction so immense that people will ride roughshod over protection. They will accept a prosecution, paying perhaps some nominal fine, but perhaps not even that. Unless we put in place a penalty system that truly deters people from acting in that way, legislation, however well intentioned, will probably not have much effect.
Mr. Breed: I agree entirely with the right hon. Gentleman. Under the Competition Act 1998, the Government decided that penalties on companies should be a percentage of their turnover. Those are real penalties. The Government should indicate clearly what the penalties will be for violating SSSIs, and we should also insist that sites are reinstated as far as possible so that there is no incentive for people to challenge the system, pay a relatively modest fine, then secure considerable commercial advantage from exploitation of a site. Penalties must relate to the commercial profitability that may be generated from damaging a site.
Mr. Simon Hughes: I am prompted by the interventions of the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea

165
(Mr. Clark) and the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) to ask whether my hon. Friend has considered that, because commercial operators need planning or other permissions, a further way in which to ensure that they understand the penalties would be to bar them from development in a county in which they have exploited or abused an SSSI. Many imaginative means could be employed to ensure that developers realise that they would suffer real disadvantage if they interfered with sites, rather than simply suffering a penalty that can be written off against company profits for the following year.
Mr. Breed: I agree. We need some modest change to the planning process as well as a Bill to protect wildlife. There is no doubt that many concerns and individuals exploit loopholes in the planning system and in legislation to carry out harmful development. Often, local authorities are forced to back down in the face of the costly challenges that companies and individuals can make. We should support local authorities that fight such actions on appeal to maintain the regulation and control that most people want.
Finally, I call on the Minister for two specific assurances. First, I would like an assurance that the Government will widen the debate and consider key threats to SSSIs. That is not included in the Green Paper, which was a discussion document. Indeed, it has generated much discussion, and I hope that some of the approximately 600 contributions to that debate will have raised many wider issues and will taken into account. Secondly, will the Minister assure me that a wildlife protection Bill will be mentioned in the Queen's Speech later this year?
We are rightly proud of our heritage, and we provide significant protection for our valuable old buildings. I understand that the Minister will today declare all sorts of additional buildings in my county to be of grade 1, grade 2* or grade 2 status. That is right; some of those buildings are hundreds of years old—but why can we not provide at least the same protection for our wildlife sites, which are often thousands of years old?
11.21 am
Mrs. Helen Brinton: I am grateful for the chance to speak in this important debate, and I congratulate, as I am sure we all do, the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed), on securing it. Having heard his contribution, and some of the interventions in his speech, I suspect that many of us on both sides of the House will make the same points. Not only do we want legislation, we want legislation with teeth. I add my voice to those calling for new legislation to protect and enhance wildlife.
We have heard much about damage and destruction of our wildlife sites. Many hon. Members are already familiar with the facts and figures, but there may be one or two who are not. More than 300 sites of special scientific interest—the best wildlife sites in the United Kingdom—are damaged every year. Between 1991 and 1996 one in five SSSIs in England and Wales were damaged, and 45 per cent. of English SSSIs are in an "unfavourable condition"—a description that may rather understate the case.
166
Since 1945, we have lost 30 to 50 per cent. of our ancient woodland and 80 per cent. of our chalk and limestone grasslands. Those are not small percentages. I was shocked when my research revealed that 95 per cent. of our wildflower meadows have also been lost.
Many of the problems affecting wildlife habitats, especially SSSIs, are not the result of direct destruction by development, as happened in the past; they are the result of neglect, which is partly due to inadequate funding. The problems are also caused by continued damage by agricultural practices and water abstraction. Drying of wetlands and low river flows are affecting the quality and sometimes the very existence of some of our major important wildlife sites.
The problems caused by water abstraction will increase as the demand for water rises with the projected growth in the number of households. My constituency of Peterborough is in an area in which rivers and wetlands are an important feature, with many designated sites, including the Nene and Ouse washes. Yet we have already lost much of our precious fenland. I note with great concern that the counties of Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Northamptonshire now have less wildlife per hectare than anywhere else in the country. Those are shocking statistics.
I am glad to say that in this Session the Government are engaged in several excellent on-going consultations, including those on water abstraction licensing and planning regulations, which should, as all of us on both sides of the House would expect, result in measures that will do much to improve the situation.

Many aspects of the Government's consultation paper on SSSIs have been strongly supported by those who are professionally concerned with conservation. However, I am sure that I am not alone in believing that there are still gaps that require urgent remedy, and that we need a whole package of new measures.
Those measures would include increased powers for wildlife agencies to encourage positive management and to stop damaging operations on all SSSIs, and powers of entry to wildlife areas for agency staff. As we have already heard, there must be increased penalties—penalties with teeth—for offences. There must also be powers to secure the restoration of damaged sites, and all public bodies must have a duty to protect and manage SSSIs. Finally, there must be greater protection for species on land water and in the sea, and protection of habitats outside SSSIs.
Labour Members are proud that it was a Labour Government who introduced the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. That was a long time ago; the Act was ground-breaking then, but it is hardly surprising that it is now a touch out of date. I ask the Minister to encourage the Government to include proposals for new wildlife laws in the next Queen's Speech.
11.26 am
Mr. Tom Brake: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) on securing a debate on such a crucial issue. My hon. Friend has illustrated the importance of protecting wildlife in his Cornwall constituency. I shall concentrate on the importance of such measures nationally.

167
The protection of wildlife and sites of special scientific interest is not a foreign issue to the House, as is reflected in the massive support for early day motion 11, tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) and supported by Members from all parts of the House, representing both rural and urban constituencies. I understand that the National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners Association also believe that some reforms are needed.
The report "50 Years of Extinction", published yesterday by the Wildlife and Countryside Link, lists many SSSIs that have been damaged since 1949. One of the listed sites nearest to my constituency is Rainham marsh, where a road has been put through part of the site and the rest is threatened by warehouse development. I am afraid that it seems that the local council favours development on that site.
That is one of the better known examples of SSSIs under threat, but there are thousands of other threatened sites throughout the country, many of which are not SSSIs but are just as worthy of protection, which I am afraid is not now afforded. For instance, in my constituency there are Ruffet wood and Big wood, which are local nature reserves, and an area of the Roundshaw downs.
As we have already heard, and will no doubt continue to hear, this is a one-sided debate. There is broad agreement that action needs to be taken—an argument accepted by the official Opposition, by Labour Members and by the Liberal Democrats. That argument has also been enthusiastically endorsed by the Minister for the Environment. Only last month, he told a lobby that the Government would go for legislation at the earliest opportunity. In fact, although I do not have a transcript of what he said, I think that he was even firmer than that, and said that he was staking his credibility on securing legislation in this Parliament.
The issue is therefore not whether but how we shall act—or more crucially, when we shall act. I was hoping that the position would be clarified in a response to a parliamentary question that I received yesterday. Sadly, the familiar mantra about the Government seeking to act, but only as and when time allows, was repeated. While the argument may have been won in the House, as early-day motion 11 confirms, it has not yet been won in Whitehall. I understand that the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has four possibilities for the Queen's Speech, including wildlife legislation. It is perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister who needs to be persuaded of the urgency of the task. Yesterday, he was due to receive 250,000 wildlife pledges from supporters of 22 environmental organisations, but pulled out at the last moment. He was in the House for the statement on Kosovo, but another Minister should have been there to receive them.
The Deputy Prime Minister should not doubt that the task is urgent, not least because our international credibility depends on it. My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cornwall touched on that. I and other members of the Environment Sub-Committee are flying this evening to Brazil and Venezuela to discuss international environmental agreements, but we will also talk about local environmental issues. We will not be in a position to complain about how developing countries treat their environments when a relatively prosperous country such as Britain treats its environment so carelessly and fails to deliver on its stated 1992 commitment in Rio to
168
maintain biodiversity. As hon. Members have noted, an SSSI is destroyed or damaged every day. As there are relatively few such sites—6,500—many of which are small, it is obvious that this urgent problem needs to be tackled as soon as possible.
The effect of such damage is devastating. I shall try not to repeat examples that other hon. Members have cited. Lapwings have declined by 70 per cent. over the past 10 years in some SSSIs. When should something be done? As soon as possible, if tomorrow is not an option, and that means in this Session of Parliament. The second issue is how, a matter which must be considered in its own right. I hope that the Government will advance specific proposals on wildlife. Alternatively, they could link wildlife with the right to roam and access to the countryside. That is not ideal, but it would be better than nothing.
The Minister knows that it was a Labour Government who first introduced serious legislation to protect wildlife, for which they should be commended. It was crucial to that Government's reforming credentials. The desire of the Prime Minister and his Deputy to be seen as heading the last great reforming Government of the century is well known. The 250,000 people whose wildlife pledges I and the hon. Member for Pavilion delivered to No. 10 yesterday believe that protecting wildlife for future generations is crucial to any such claim.
11.34 am
Mr. David Chaytor: I congratulate the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) on securing the debate. The enormous number of signatures to early-day motion 11, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper), and the submission of a petition with 250,000 signatures yesterday reflect growing public awareness. We need to remember that more people choose to belong to wildlife and environmental organisations than to join political parties, churches, trade unions or any other voluntary associations. Parliament ignores that at its peril.
The vulnerability of sites of special scientific interest, the dangers that they face and the scale of the damage has been well documented by other hon. Members. I want to rebalance the debate by concentrating on the overwhelming majority of the country that is not subject to SSSI legislation. By force of circumstance, I happen to have lived in the same village for the past 27 years, which has allowed me to observe the changing nature of wildlife in my immediate environment. Three things, above all, are apparent.
First, there has been a drastic decline in wildlife in areas subject to agriculture. Secondly, there has been a remarkable increase in wildlife in ordinary, domestic gardens. Thirdly, wildlife has suffered drastic effects from various developments, particularly new housing, and the associated increase in the transport infrastructure, in green-belt areas. I conclude that the public desire to see more wildlife in their immediate environment. That is why so many people are making strenuous efforts to improve biodiversity in their own back gardens.
Mr. Brake: Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that permitted development rights in people's

169
back gardens mean that there is no protection for wild species on such sites? An owner-occupier can build an extensive patio or garden shed over a site.
Mr. Chaytor: I agree. That reinforces the point that to focus entirely on SSSIs is to ignore the bigger picture. We should not regard wildlife as something that has to be protected in a few specialist areas; it needs to be encouraged across the country, in urban, suburban and rural areas.
The other conclusion that I draw from my observations of my immediate environment over the past generation is the appalling effect of the common agricultural policy. There is a growing realisation of the need for change, about which there has been a major debate. I am not yet sure that, in the desire to reduce subsidy and move to a more market-driven agriculture, we have yet accepted fully the need to provide more and more incentives for farmers to be the guardians of the countryside and biodiversity rather than simply adjusting their production to a market-based system.
The analogy drawn earlier between the protection of SSSIs and of listed buildings is important. It is as foolish and self-defeating to protect listed buildings in isolation without wider concern for preserving our heritage as it is to see wildlife preservation only in terms of the protection of SSSIs. We need to take a far broader approach to wildlife preservation and adopt a range of measures across Departments to encourage biodiversity over the whole country.
As with all debates on the environment, it is important that the Minister should respond to our points. We know that the Ministers in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions have an unswerving commitment to the preservation, protection and enhancement of biodiversity, but the power to achieve that does not always lie with that Department. My second major point is that we must constantly reinforce the message that other Departments have as much, if not more, power to determine the future of wildlife. That is especially true of the Department of Trade and Industry and its responsibilities for energy policy, because our obsession with burning fossil fuels and generating nuclear power—instead of the development of renewable energy policies—has drastically reduced biodiversity. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and its traditional support for the common agricultural policy is thankfully now changing, but much more work needs to be done.
The Department for Education and Employment also has a role to play. I recently visited Greenhill primary school in my constituency. It designated a week as its environment week, and all the school's activities were devoted to developing awareness in the children of the importance of biodiversity. I was privileged to attend a presentation by pupils of the school in which they demonstrated the enormous level of interest that young people have in biodiversity and how effective that can be when channelled by teachers into constructive and informative educational activity.
The role of the Treasury is of crucial importance, which brings me to my next point. Without a consistent and coherent implementation of a green tax policy, there is
170
little future for wildlife and biodiversity. The Budget made an important step towards a green tax policy. However, although 250,000 people will sign a petition in support of environmental protection and the preservation of wildlife, when the difficult decisions that put that desire into effect have to be taken, people get nervous. The truckers and their concern about the changes in diesel tax are one example of that, but there are many others.
I was pleased to see from the Red Book that the Government remain committed to a tax on aggregates. Although the tax did not appear in the Budget, discussions are continuing and the Government have reinforced their intention to legislate if voluntary agreement cannot be reached with the companies concerned. Mineral extraction has been disastrous for the variety of our wildlife. We must continue to put pressure on the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and to support the commitment shown by environment Ministers, but it is other Departments—especially the Treasury—that hold the key to the future of wildlife.
Mr. Breed: The hon. Gentleman mentioned mineral extractions and the Treasury. The problem of compensation includes the relative values of the site in economic terms and in its preservation for wildlife. Does he agree that existing planning legislation does not emphasise sufficiently that land should be reinstated once its economic purpose has been achieved? That is a requirement in SSSIs and in areas of outstanding natural beauty, but when permission is given for any development that might destroy the land, it should be automatic that the landowner is obliged to reinstate the land once the development has ceased.
Mr. Chaytor: That is an important point and I agree completely. Such issues will increasingly become the responsibility of regional development agencies and it is important that they put a commitment to sustainable development at the heart of their economic development programme. I am delighted that that has already been done in the north-west.
Mr. Simon Burns: I listened with interest to the hon. Gentleman's comments about green taxes and the Treasury. Does he believe that there is a role for incentives—tax breaks—for the good guys instead of taxation which inevitably means paying more? We should help those who are more environmentally friendly, whether driving cars or lorries, with tax breaks, and penalise those with dirty lorries or high-polluting cars. People could then offset the cost of making their vehicles more environmentally friendly.
Mr. Chaytor: I agree, and that is what the Government did in the Budget. However, green taxes do not inevitably mean that more tax will be paid, because they can redistribute the way in which tax is paid. Many of the good green taxes are fiscally neutral in their attempt to shift the burden of taxation from activities that are generally considered good, such as labour, to pollution, which is generally considered to be bad.
Mr. Burns: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that green taxes should be fiscally neutral. The problem is that the measures in the Budget may be fiscally neutral in their

171
overall effect, but they are not fiscally neutral in their effect on individual businesses in certain sectors of the economy.
Mr. Chaytor: I agree; although I said that green taxes could be fiscally neutral, they do not necessarily have to be so. It is true that a fundamental rebalancing of the tax system is taking place, the like of which we have not seen for many years, and it will mean winners and losers. However, we should not allow local difficulties to get in the way of the general strategy. It is right, although it must be applied sensitively—and within a generation it will have huge beneficial effects on biodiversity, wildlife, and the quality of our environment.
I congratulate the Government on their many positive initiatives on a range of topics. I especially wish to draw attention to the importance of the publication of the United Kingdom biodiversity action plan a few weeks ago. This debate should send the message that the Government's various initiatives and consultations need to be drawn together. I disagree with the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) because I think that a future wildlife Bill should tie together the various wildlife and countryside issues, including the right to roam.
Mr. Brake: If those two issues were linked, the Bill would get bogged down in the other place.
Mr. Chaytor: One would hope that the nature of the other place will change in the not too distant future. The important point is that wildlife cannot be preserved in isolation, because it must permeate our whole environment. That is why I am arguing for comprehensive wildlife and countryside legislation. We should not adopt a piecemeal approach and tackle the issue section by section: we need a single block of comprehensive legislation.
To their credit, this Government—like the post-war Government—have improved many policy areas in need of fundamental reform. They have grasped the nettle in the crucial areas of welfare and health care reform, and we must now continue that process by introducing wildlife and countryside legislation. By making a clear commitment to include such legislation in next year's Queen's Speech, we will not only fulfil Labour's promise to put the environment at the heart of Government policy, but leave a lasting legacy for the new millennium.
11.50 am
Mr. Simon Burns: I congratulate the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) on securing this important debate. We welcome the opportunity on a Wednesday morning to discuss intelligently and calmly and at reasonable length a subject of critical importance. As the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) said, this is a very topical issue, given early-day motion 11 and the Government's moves to examine wildlife issues, the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and to introduce legislation to address several problems that have been discussed in the debate.
The sooner we get such legislation, the better. I echo the comments of several hon. Members—the fact was reiterated at Environment questions yesterday afternoon—
172
that this is a matter of urgency, and I hope that the Government will introduce relevant legislation in next year's Queen's Speech. However, for several reasons, I am not as enthusiastic as are the hon. Members for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) and for Carshalton and Wallington about introducing Christmas tree-type legislation. The wildlife aspects of any legislation would command universal support in the Chamber and could be piloted through Parliament in an intelligent and non-partisan manner. The danger with Christmas tree-type legislation is that it introduces certain politically controversial issues that might prove self-defeating.
Mr. Brake: Will the hon. Gentleman explain what he means by "Christmas tree legislation"? We are talking about wildlife.
Mr. Burns: The hon. Gentleman is relatively new to the House. It is a parliamentary expression that refers to including several issues within a broad subject base. To take the wildlife example, the Government might introduce legislation regarding sites of special scientific interest and other wildlife considerations. They might then add to that the issue of access to the countryside, possibly hunting—which, although a countryside issue, would be fraught with danger—and other unrelated issues that come under the umbrella of the countryside. I saw the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton) look towards heaven when I mentioned the "H" word. However, certain lobby groups are seeking to put pressure on the Government to include hunting in any wildlife Bill.
My point is that, although there would be almost universal support for a wildlife measure, other issues that come under the countryside umbrella are far more controversial. It would be sad if the Government caused problems by making such badly needed legislation a Christmas tree-type measure. I hope that they will consider my concerns seriously when taking decisions about what will be in the next Queen's Speech.
We share an interest in protecting our natural heritage. All types of animal and plant life need protection for their own sake and because of the many benefits that they provide to mankind and the way in which they interact as part of our fragile eco-structure. Caring for the environment must be central to any society's responsibilities. Economic growth and environmental protection must be balanced carefully and integrated successfully.
This generation clearly needs the homes, jobs, food and services that only continued economic growth can provide. However, at the same time, common sense demands that economic growth be sustainable. It would be wrong to limit the ability of future generations to meet their own needs or to pass heavy environmental costs to them. We must consider and manage the environmental consequences of our actions today in the context of their future implications for the environment, the countryside and wildlife. We must take a long-term view and focus more on the quality of life of both this and future generations, and not simply on current economic facts of life.
I listened with interest to several hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Peterborough and for Bury, North, who paid tribute to the Labour Government of 1945–1951 and the National Parks and Access to the

173
Countryside Act 1949. I share their views about that legislation, but I am slightly perplexed at their suggestion that all legislation and Government action to improve and protect the environment stopped in 1949 and began again only on 2 May 1997. I appreciate that the hon. Members were making a point for internal consumption—the Government Whip is on the Front Bench. However, I was slightly puzzled by their failure to mention the landmark Clean Air Act 1956, which did so much to protect the environment and plant and animal life in this country, particularly in London and in other big cities.
Mrs. Brinton: The hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) and I mentioned the sterling environmental achievements of the reforming Labour Administration of 1945. Has the hon. Gentleman read the minutes or reports of the Environmental Audit Select Committee, which comprises hon. Members from four political parties? If he reads those documents closely, he will see that all members of the Select Committee give credit, where it is due, to Governments of all political colours.
Mr. Burns: The hon. Lady's initial comment is slightly redundant. She will remember the fascinating debate—in which she and I participated—in this Chamber only four Wednesdays ago when we discussed the Select Committee's report. Some six months after its publication, I was able to study and read the report in depth, and I do not dispute the hon. Lady's comments about its contents.
My point is that the speeches made today in the Chamber—which have a wider audience—did not reflect the contents of that report. Labour Members seemed to suggest that governmental action on the environment stopped in 1949 with landmark legislation and resumed on 2 May 1997. The Clean Air Act 1956 and other measures, including our signing up to the Rio commitments in 1992 under the previous Government led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), are equally important. They will help us to improve the environment of not only this country but the rest of the world—because the environment does not respect national or geographical boundaries.
Of course, no debate on the environment could take place without the House paying tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). Ministers in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions have the decency to recognise him as having been a pioneer Secretary of State for the Environment concerned about advancing environmental considerations.
I remind the House that Conservative Governments had a good record on the environment, and under my noble Friend Baroness Thatcher, passed the 1981 Act and established SSSIs and environmentally sensitive areas. We were responsible also for the expansion of the countryside stewardship scheme. The Environment Act 1995 provided Parliament with the powers to implement a statutory scheme to protect the hedgerows, which are so crucial to sustaining wildlife and enabling it to thrive in the countryside. The previous Administration established the biodiversity action plan and the biodiversity steering group, which committed Britain to tough targets.
174
I turn now to the problems of SSSIs, which have featured significantly in the debate. As hon. Members have said, SSSIs cover approximately 7 per cent. of the land of England and Wales, and there are more than 5,500 sites. They represent the best examples of our natural heritage of wildlife habitats, geographical features and land forms. In addition, environmentally sensitive areas cover about 15 per cent. of the land of the United Kingdom.
The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, in an excellent brief that it provided for the debate, has drawn attention to serious problems with SSSIs. In the past six years, more than 2,000 have been damaged, just under half have an unfavourable conservation status, 46 sites have lost their status altogether and hundreds have had part of the designation deleted. As it was pointed out at Environment questions yesterday, it is important that more is done through the introduction, as soon as possible, of a wildlife or countryside Bill to strengthen the regime and its protection and enforcement and so avoid the continued demise and denigration of those sites. Once a site is lost, it is difficult, if not impossible, to restore it to its former condition.
I found interesting the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark) and the intervention—I believe that it was made by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, but I may be wrong—about penalties for people who actively damage SSSIs and seek to walk away from any responsibility. There is little point, as experience has shown, in having legislation to protect areas or certain features of our countryside if there are no powers to punish people who wilfully seek to destroy or denigrate them. I hope that when the Government introduce their legislation, they will consider that.
The Conservative party fully understands that the market can often be brought to bear on environmental problems. People must appreciate that the market is not simply a negative force but has an important positive role to play in environmental protection. Economic instruments make environmental costs more explicit and identifiable and thereby ensure that they are properly taken into account. In government, we operated a number of schemes to provide financial incentives for environmentally friendly farming, such as the introduction of nitrate-sensitive areas to protect selected groundwater sources and the habitat scheme to improve a range of habitats. We also encouraged organic production through the organic aid scheme.
In opposition, we are developing the policies that we operated in government. We have been consulting a wide range of interested parties throughout the country. In our on-going listening to Britain campaign, the environment has emerged as one of the key issues, especially among members of the younger generation. The protection of the environment will be a central part of the next Conservative Government, as it was in the previous Conservative Government. However, the protection of wildlife should not have to wait until the next general election to receive the attention that it deserves. It is up to this Government to take forward the work that they inherited and implement solutions to the many problems that clearly still exist.
The Labour party's general election manifesto contained a commitment to
"ensure greater protection for wildlife".

175
In September 1998, the DETR and the Welsh Office published a consultation document entitled, "Sites of special scientific interest: better protection and management", which proposes a number of changes to the existing legislation and guidance about SSSIs. Those modifications to the current framework promise to assist the enforcement of SSSIs, and that is to be welcomed. However, I urge the Minister to reconsider and pay careful attention to the responses to the consultation process and to be bolder than the document suggests the Government might be. They have a golden opportunity to seize the moment and draw up comprehensive legislation, particularly on SSSIs, to provide for extra protection and enforcement of those valuable sites.
Mr. Brake: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the Government should give better protection to the site of Rettendon Shaw, which is in or near his constituency? I understand that a six-lane highway that is being built from Chelmsford to Southend will go through that site of special scientific interest.
Mr. Burns: I suspected that at some time, and probably on the Liberal Democrat Benches, a note of discord and a point of sheer party politics would be raised. First, the site is not in my constituency, although it is close by. Secondly, I suggest that if the hon. Gentleman wants an answer to that question, he should address it not to me but to the leader of Chelmsford borough council, which, he will be aware, is controlled by the Liberal Democrat party. The leader of the council has lobbied as hard as anyone for that badly needed road to be built because the existing road is an accident black spot of unacceptable proportions. Many families have members who have been injured or, sadly, killed on that stretch of road and they desperately want the new road to be built. I suspect that they would not be terribly amused to hear a Liberal Democrat Member trying, because of a local election campaign, to score cheap party political points in what should be an intelligent debate on wildlife.
Mr. Brake: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Burns: No, I will not give way again because the hon. Gentleman may try to make another petty party political point and that would waste the time of hon. Members who are trying to have an intelligent debate on the environment.
We all want a new wildlife Bill. I caution the Government against trying to introduce a Christmas tree-type Bill, because I believe that it will detract from the importance of the wildlife aspect and probably—judging by experience in the House in the past few years—introduce a degree of controversy and division that will not exist for a straightforward wildlife Bill.
12.10 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Alan Meale): I congratulate the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) on spending his parliamentary time trying to obtain this important debate. He has shown an interest in the subject since he came to this place, and it is to his credit that he has chosen to obtain considerable parliamentary time to devote to this important issue.
176
I can tell the hon. Gentleman and the House that the Government also take very seriously the preservation of wildlife in the United Kingdom. I therefore welcome the opportunity that the debate gives me to emphasise the high profile that nature conservation now rightly receives, in line with the Labour party's manifesto commitment to afford greater protection to wildlife in the United Kingdom.
The United Kingdom is fortunate in the diversity of its wildlife—especially so when one considers the intensity of human occupation that these islands have been subjected to, particularly for the past 200 years. It is also fortunate in the depth to which that wildlife has been recorded and studied, and in the scale of interest that the general public take in the subject of conservation. No other country has wildlife bodies that are as well supported and have as many members. It is therefore not surprising that there is such a strength of feeling that politicians must do all that they can to conserve and sustain our wildlife assets. The Government acknowledge that strength of feeling and are responding to it today, via this debate.
The debate has focused in large part on the protection of sites of special scientific interest, and Labour Members understand that emphasis. We do need to pay particular attention to the conservation of those most important sites, which constitute some of our most precious areas for wildlife, harbouring rare and endangered species and providing the habitats where they can flourish.
For that reason, the Government have given priority to drawing up proposals that, we believe, would provide for better protection and management of those sites of special scientific interest—or SSSIs, as they are commonly known. Those are the 4,000 or so sites that constitute the best areas for nature conservation, and which have been designated by English Nature as representative of the full suite of nationally important species and habitats.
Those sites may be special, but I emphasise the degree to which SSSIs lie within the grain of the countryside. Most are in private hands and many have a long tradition of human use—human use which has often been a major contributor to creating the special interest that has caused the designation.
Many SSSIs are well managed and in good condition, and their owners and managers enjoy a constructive relationship with the conservation agencies. However, as the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) and one or two other hon. Members have pointed out, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton), too many of those special sites suffer damage, and in too many cases they are not in good health at all. English Nature has said, following assessment of the condition of interest features on many sites in 1997-98, that more than 55 per cent. of all units on SSSIs were meeting their conservation objectives. However, in a quarter of units there are features in unfavourable condition, and the condition in one tenth is becoming even worse.
The main reason for the decline appears to be the lack of appropriate management. In England, English Nature aims to increase the proportion of sites that are positively managed for conservation and to reduce the proportion that are in an unfavourable condition. We recognise that more needs to be done to encourage the process and to provide the best framework within which it can operate.

177
For those reasons, last September we published a Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions consultation paper on SSSIs, containing significant proposals to help deliver real improvements in the immediate future.
Our proposals covered a range of options. We believe that better protection and management can be secured by a mixture of policy, administrative, financial and legal changes.
We propose the following policy changes. We propose to make it clear that all SSSIs are of national importance, and that some of them—perhaps up to half, by area—are recognised as being of international importance. We propose to clarify planning guidance so as to reflect the national importance of SSSIs, with a strong presumption against development that would significantly affect any SSSI—a test already introduced, in relation to trunk roads, by the Government's transport White Paper.
Administratively, we propose to demonstrate the Government's commitment to better protection and management by giving effect to a duty on Government Departments holding SSSI land to ensure that those sites are managed in the conservation interest. We shall encourage English Nature to develop further the range of partnerships with owners and occupiers of sites, including the voluntary conservation organisations, and to be more proactive by involving the local community in decisions that affect them and by taking enforcement action against those who deliberately damage sites. That was mentioned by the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall and by hon. Members on both sides of the House, including my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough and the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark).
Regarding finances, we have already provided additional resources to English Nature to improve the condition of sites, but we also propose amending the financial guidelines on management agreements, so as to move further from compensating managers for not damaging sites and towards paying for positive management.
We believe that we can make progress in that regard very quickly but, last but by no means least in the package, we acknowledge the need to legislate in several key areas. For instance, we have proposed new powers for the agencies, the most significant of which will allow them, for the first time, to refuse consent for damaging operations. There would be a right of appeal, but an entitlement to compensation in very limited circumstances only.
The consultation paper also considers and seeks further views on the powers that the agencies might be given to address further key areas—in particular, neglect and lack of management and third-party damage, where greater powers and better enforcement are especially necessary.
We have proposed increased penalties for damage to SSSIs and increased powers to require restoration. The agencies should also have additional powers of entry to land, and more flexible powers to purchase SSSI land compulsorily, although we envisage that both those types of power would need to be used in very exceptional circumstances only.
Finally, we have said that we would consider policy developments in other areas to ensure that those deliver conservation benefits. To take a recent example, which
178
was mentioned by several hon. Members on both sides of the House, the package of environmental measures that water companies must include in their business plans specifically covers schemes that address problems associated with water abstraction at more than 50 SSSIs in England and in Wales.
It may be helpful if I reconfirm the philosophy that underpins our proposals for those special sites. First, we want to build on rather than displace the constructive relationships already established with thousands of owners and occupiers of SSSIs. We need a variety of partnerships with owners and occupiers, with local communities, with voluntary conservation organisations—and with Government Departments, some of whom are major land holders with SSSIs and are custodians of our wildlife heritage. The Government recognise and accept the responsibilities that that places on us, and we will help and encourage others who similarly accept their responsibilities for the nation's wildlife.
We realise that there is a need for further legislation to underpin partnerships and provide better means of addressing problems. To that end, we have proposed significant new powers for the conservation agencies. Deliberate damage, however, is rare: what we need to deal with is neglect, along with unsympathetic management. Legislation alone will not solve all the problems. We shall look to a range of options that will deliver key objectives. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) pointed out, the overall outcome of recent negotiations on reform of the common agriculture policy represents a further step—a small step—in the right direction, and we have worked hard to ensure that there will be potential benefits for the environment and for wildlife.
My officials are currently analysing detailed responses to the consultation paper, which demonstrate a wide range of interest in the issues and present a variety of alternative suggestions. We shall consider all those suggestions carefully before developing final proposals. I hope shortly to be able to announce preliminary conclusions, but we have already demonstrated our commitment to action through the increased resources that we have given English Nature. During the current year, English Nature will receive an extra £6.14 million, a significant proportion of which will go towards supporting the management of SSSIs. We shall look to English Nature to demonstrate that it can deliver immediate improvements.
In emphasising the protection of SSSIs to such an extent, we are also aware of the importance of such sites as a foundation for many of our international wildlife objectives. SSSIs underpin such obligations, providing the main domestic mechanisms with which we can deliver. Primary among those obligations are our obligations under the European Union's nature conservation directives. We continue to make good progress in implementing Natura 2000, the network of special sites that will represent the finest nature conservation sites at a European level. The United Kingdom has now classified 197 sites as special protection areas because of their ornithological interest under the birds directive, and has submitted 333 sites as candidates for special area of conservation status to the European Commission under the habitats directive, giving recognition and enhanced protection to the cream of our nature conservation heritage.

179
The United Kingdom is committed to full implementation of the requirements of the habitats directive. Our SAC list was selected by means of a rigorous and iterative scientific process, which applied the directive's criteria consistently across the UK. There has been full consultation on all the proposals, which, in a number of cases, incorporate changes made in the light of comments from the voluntary consultation movement and other consultees. I acknowledge that there have been criticisms of our list, but they are based on unscientific comparisons and misunderstandings of the directive's requirements.
SSSIs are also the foundation for other international obligations. I especially wish to mention the progress that we have made in delivering our commitment to the Ramsar convention on wetlands of international importance. The convention is concerned not just with the listing of sites because of their ornithological, botanical or hydrological significance, but with the wise use of all wetlands, and with effective programmes of education and public awareness that will communicate the value of wetlands and secure commitment to their conservation and sustainable use. The publication in 1998 of a Ramsar strategic plan for the UK, with appropriate targets for action, has underlined our commitments under the convention, and we expect to play a full part in the seventh conference of the parties in Costa Rica next month.
I must also stress the Government's commitment to our other international wildlife targets. I refer particularly to the Berne convention on the conservation of European wildlife and habitats and to the Bonn convention on the conservation of migratory species of wild animals, with its daughter agreements relating to cetaceans, bats and water birds. In emphasising our proposals to protect and manage special sites better, however, we should not overlook the importance of the context of wider policies. Protection of special sites needs to be complemented by action to protect species.
The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 affords protection to all native birds, to animals listed in schedule 5 and to plants listed in schedule 8. The Act also requires the protection given to native animals and plants to be reviewed at least every five years. In April 1998, the most recent such review resulted in protection for an additional 17 plant species and 11 animal species. Although such reviews must be conducted at least every five years, the Department and its scientific advisers are duty bound by the Act to monitor the conservation status of threatened species and, where necessary, to consider legislative protection if it believes that that will deal with a particular threat to the species. It is as a result of that process that I recently signed an order to control the release of sika deer hybrids to protect native red deer.
We are, however, increasingly aware of concern about the effectiveness of relying on the listing of species in schedules to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to protect animals and plants. As a result of the concerns that have been raised, the joint nature conservation committee was asked to undertake a review of the rationale and effectiveness of listing species in all the schedules to part I of the Act, and we shall shortly be considering the outcome of that review.
Where necessary, we shall also take appropriate steps to address specific concerns about the conservation of species. Lead poisoning in water fowl has been a worry for some time, and shooting, conservation and landowning
180
organisations have been working with the Government to find a solution. Only last week, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment announced a consultation exercise on the detail of proposed legislation to restrict the use of lead shot over wetlands. Comments on the proposals will be taken into account in the finalising of the legislation, which is intended to come into force in England and Wales by the start of the shooting season on 1 September 1999.
We are keen that there should be robust means of enforcing wildlife protection legislation. About two years ago, the partnership for action against wildlife crime submitted to Ministers a package of recommendations to strengthen the enforcement of the legislation. The Government are sympathetic to most of those recommendations, which include proposals for the provision of a clear power for police officers or the Department's wildlife inspectors to require tissue samples to be made available for DNA testing purposes, the introduction of custodial sentences for certain offences under part I of the 1981 Act, the rationalisation of search-warrant and time-limit provisions under the same Act, limited new powers of entry for the Department's wildlife inspectors and a new offence of recklessly disturbing a nest site or a place of rest or shelter. I attach priority to those measures, and consider that they should be given legislative force as soon as possible.
I have mentioned a number of specific initiatives that the Government are taking to protect our wildlife better. Let me now take a minute to say something about the overarching framework within which those initiatives need to be placed: the strategy provided by the United Kingdom biodiversity action plan. The plan provides the framework within which, in considering the preservation of wildlife in the UK, we must go beyond the protection of species and habitats. In that wider context, the Government's biodiversity politics are an important component in a suite of measures aimed not just at conserving wildlife, but at fostering sustainable development. Biodiversity is one test, a key test, of whether we are moving towards a society that operates sustainably.
We have built on the structures that were bequeathed to us when we came to office—notably the UK biodiversity group, chaired by an official from my Department, but also with members of all key sectors. We have developed UK biodiversity work, not least by providing additional resources for it, and we have made good progress in involving people from outside the nature conservation world in biodiversity work.
I have not dealt with a number of relevant issues, but I have noted all the questions asked by the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall, his hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) and the hon. Member for West Chelmsford, as well as those asked by my hon. Friends. I promise that I shall write to them in due course—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must move to the next debate.

Lewisham Rail Stations (Disabled Access)
12.30 pm
Joan Ruddock: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a matter that is of enormous concern to my constituents and to those of other hon. Members with constituencies along the routes operated by the railway company, Connex.
In south London, there is some of the oldest railway infrastructure in the country. We have Victorian and Edwardian stations where there are high footbridges over the track, enabling people to get from one side to the other. Of course, they can do that only if they are able-bodied. When those structures were built, no consideration was given to access for those who might be less able or disabled.
The Royal National Institute for Deaf People spotted the title of today's debate and wrote to me, thinking that I would speak about improved access. I wish I were. The purpose of the debate is not to call for much-needed improved access, but to draw the attention of the House and my hon. Friend the Minister to the action of Connex in taking away existing access for travellers with disabilities.
The matter was first raised with me in a series of letters from my constituents, complaining about the closure of side and rear entrances. That might seem a trivial issue, but it has had serious effects on the travelling public in my constituency, and has profound implications for the railway regulation and franchising authorities. It also provides the clearest evidence of institutional discrimination against people with disabilities.
In early February, I received the first letters about the closure of the entrances to the level platforms at Catford Bridge station. Susan Ford wrote to me in the following terms:
"On Monday 8 February I and a few hundred other passengers who travel from Catford Bridge railway station each day, were suddenly confronted with the locking of the gate which is the entrance to platform 1 (London bound). We had no prior warning".
The letter continues:
"Apart from the extreme inconvenience this has caused to passengers … it has now become an absolute no-go travelling area for the disabled, parents with babies in buggies and those carrying heavy bags or cases. There is no way of reaching platform I without negotiating at least two flights of stairs."
Mrs. Ford went on to say:
"There is of course the safety of passengers in general, particularly women. If a passenger felt compromised there was an alternative route of escape, but now on the side of the platform, where there is unlikely to be any passers-by … they have effectively locked in a potential victim."
That letter was followed by one from J. T. Jefferies to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd), who I am glad to see is in his seat, and who, I know, supports me in everything that I shall say on the matter today. Mr. Jefferies wrote of his experiences at Catford Bridge station:
"People approaching the station past the old booking office have to walk all down one side of the station, up a flight of stairs to the street, along the pavement, past the 'down' side platform, down a side street and across a car park to the 'down' side ticket office, along the 'down' side platform, up the footbridge stairs, across the bridge, down the stairs to the `up' platform and along the platform to wherever they join the train."
182
Of course, people travelling in the opposite direction must reverse all those movements.
Mr. Tom Brake: The hon. Lady may be interested to know that I have a similar problem in my constituency at Wallington station, where passengers have to go down a deep underpass because Connex South Central has chosen to lock one of the entrances to the station. I am sure the hon. Lady would agree that that affects not only people with disabilities, but every passenger who travels by Connex South Central.
Joan Ruddock: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, which I hope has been heard.
The letters from which I quoted were soon followed by one from Ruby Lescott, who wrote:
"Connex has simply locked out anyone with a disability. It also makes waiting on the 'up' platform at the non-peak times much more worrying as there is now only one way out of the station"
— and that is on to the track.
There are clearly great issues of security at stake. Naturally, I contacted Connex and sent copies of the letters. I expected a reply stating that the closures were a temporary measure, soon to be revised, and at least an apology, but none was forthcoming. The chief operating officer, Mr. Geoffrey Harrison-Mee, wrote ominously:
"Side and rear entrances at a number of locations have been closed to help us control and monitor access to stations… Where we have closed side and rear entrances, we have found that vandalism and graffiti have been markedly reduced, and by concentrating access at main entrances we have been able to tackle ticketless travel which has helped us provide a more secure travelling environment. These are issues I know your constituents feel strongly about."
Ms Bridget Prentice: As my hon. Friend knows, Hither Green station in my constituency has recently received a safety award, presented by the Minister. It is a Connex South Eastern station with entirely open access. There is no vandalism there now, so the idea that closures are a way of making stations more secure clearly does not marry up with what Connex South Eastern is doing at other stations.
Joan Ruddock: My hon. Friend is right. Many of my constituents and hers have raised the matter with the operating company.
Mr. Harrison-Mee went on to state in his letter:
"Where customers have special needs, we will do our best to help by opening gates, and special assistance can be arranged by contacting our Customer Services team".
I was offered a meeting, but no attempt was made to answer constituents' claims that measures at Catford Bridge made for greater danger, not security. However, there was an assurance that gates could be opened, and we could contact customer services—more of that in a moment.
Meanwhile, M. Coulston wrote to me about Lewisham station and the evening closure of the platform 4 exit, which leads to the main residential area and Tesco, which stays open till midnight. He pointed out not only the inconvenience, but the need for
"anyone elderly or disabled, or anyone with children or shopping, to walk several hundred yards further than they used to"

183
and to negotiate two staircases. He also pointed out that the low fence next to the locked gate was easily negotiated by anyone able-bodied, including "muggers and vandals".
Again I wrote to Mr. Harrison-Mee, who replied in similar vein to his previous letter. However, this time he acknowledged the specific complaint and stated:
"I have noted Mr. Coulston's concerns about this gate being closed, and I hope that he will now understand why we have taken this course of action."
I am sure that he did not, and neither did I.
Clearly, neither my constituents nor I were being listened to. I decided to follow up the offer of a meeting and made contact with Connex customer services. The staff at customer services were extremely helpful, but they said that they needed 48 hours' notice, as frequently the only staff member on a station was the person in the ticket office selling the tickets, who could not leave. Therefore customer services would have to arrange for someone else to go to a station to unlock the gates for a disabled person.
I asked about shorter notice. I was told that that could be arranged, but that certain people took advantage and claimed that there was an emergency every time. I asked about a commuter who goes to work every morning and comes back every evening. I was told that that would have to be taken up with the relevant commercial manager.
At one level, that is hilarious, but it represents the most profound discrimination against people with disabilities—not by the individuals who work for customer services, I am sure, but by the institution. The problem affects not only wheelchair users, but anyone who is less able to walk, all families with babies and buggies, and people who have heavy luggage, as they may well do at a railway station. For those who could not negotiate stairs in any circumstances, Connex's policy meant a profound restriction of their freedom to travel, whether for pleasure or to earn a living. Disabled people were offered a second-class service.
Scope, Britain's largest disability charity, said as much and took up the cause. The local newspapers—the South London Press, The Mercury and the News Shopper—all championed the passengers, as did BBC Radio 4's hard-hitting programme "You and Yours", but still Connex did not budge.
Then I received letters about Ladywell, which is my local station. It serves the district hospital and is adjacent to a school for children with special needs. It has a particularly high footbridge spanning the tracks. In the most bizarre exercise to date, Connex locked the side gates when the station was staffed—by one person, who could not open the gates because he was serving tickets—but unlocked them, giving free access to vandals, when the ticket office staff left in the early evening. Sara Peat wrote to me in exasperation, saying that she used the station every day, but suffered from a painful arthritic condition that made it dangerous and difficult for her to use the stairs. June Broom summed the situation up when she wrote:
"Disabled people can no longer use the station. The elderly now find it difficult. Watergate special school … can no longer go on school outings by train. … The direct route to Lewisham Hospital is no longer possible."
I wrote to my hon. Friend the Minister and Scope wrote formally to Connex, arguing that its policy was a possible breach of its licence and asking for a review.
184
Throughout the sorry saga, Connex maintained that the closures were in the interests of passengers—enhancing security, reducing vandalism and raising revenue. Those are laudable objectives that we all support. Of course we want our railway to be a success, but no railway operator should justify buying station security on the backs of disabled people. Everything that Connex did discouraged and prevented people from travelling, and soured relations between staff and customers.
When I finally organised a site meeting of my constituents and Connex representatives to allow people to explain how they were affected at Ladywell station, it became clear that the people running the railway had not thought through the consequences of their strategy of, as they put it,
"reclaiming the railway from the vandals."
The situation continued from the beginning of February until the middle of March. In the last week of March, I was finally told that the stations in my area would have their side and rear accesses reopened and left open for 24 hours a day while a review was being carried out.
That may seem like a great success. It is, but the situation should never have arisen. More importantly, my constituent Sandra den Hertog was told in a recent letter that consideration was being given to individual needs and that there was an on-going review. I cannot be confident that the recent reversal of policy will hold. That is why I have raised this important debate.
I want to ensure action. I also want lessons to be learned and questions to be answered. Who made the decision? Who left it to local station staff to implement a policy of shutting out their customers? In the briefing for today's debate, which no doubt my hon. Friend the Minister has seen, Connex says that it consulted about the changes by advertising the closures two weeks in advance. That is no consultation. The company even acknowledges that it did not happen at every station. It says that it has in place
"an effective policy for assisting people with disabilities to travel."
That is patently not true. Another constituent has written at length about what happens when people try to get help from customer services. The company says that it is proud of the fact that 25 per cent. of customers with mobility problems use its customer services. I am concerned that 75 per cent. do not and I wonder why. How could the situation have arisen?
Connex's disabled people's protection policy makes a commitment to improve
"ease of access and egress from station platforms and trains."
Compliance with the DPPP is a requirement of Connex's operator's licence. Its action is a clear breach of the licence. I am delighted that the accesses have been reopened, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will make it clear that the situation is unacceptable, that there must be no repeats and that if there are any remaining closures—I am not aware of any; I think that 10 stations had accesses reopened—they must be reopened immediately. My hon. Friend must tell us that steps will be taken to ensure that the situation does not recur and to ensure proper compliance with DPPPs. I very much hope that he is already discussing with railway operators the need for them to be prepared to meet the terms of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which will come into effect for the railways in October this year.

185
I hope that Connex has learned a hard lesson and I hope that other railway companies will take note. I have been told today that South West Trains may be in the process of instituting such a policy or may have already adopted one. I hope that my hon. Friend will make inquiries into such behaviour. There must be no repetition. It must be made clear that people with disabilities—profound and permanent or less severe and temporary—and those of us who are burdened in our normal way of life must have equal access to our public services, including our railways. Nothing less than that will satisfy me, my hon. Friends who are here today and my constituents. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will make that clear to our local train operating companies and to all the others, and that there will be a clear improvement.
Despite my criticisms of Connex, my hon. Friends and I will be more than willing to work with the company to ensure greater security for our stations—as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Ms Prentice) did at Hither Green—less evasion of fares and a reduction in vandalism. However, that must be done by other means. We shall be happy to explore all those issues with the company, as well as better access for people with disabilities.
12.47 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Alan Meale): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) on securing this debate and providing an opportunity for the House to discuss access for disabled people to railways. She has a fine record in this place. She was the Government spokesman on women and in opposition, she was a lead spokesman on transport and on London. She has always been at the forefront on issues relating to transport, London and the rights of the individual.
I understand my hon. Friend's concern about the restriction of access to stations in Lewisham. Her intervention has persuaded Connex that its action was precipitate and that it should reinstate the accesses where alterations caused unacceptable difficulties for passengers with disabilities. Connex is reviewing how it might pursue security enhancement of its stations without disadvantaging disabled people and other passengers with particular needs, such as mothers with child carriages or shopping bags.
The Rail Regulator's office is actively involved in reviewing the issues with Connex to ensure that the company's actions are consistent with its licence requirements to protect the interests of disabled people and with the statutory provisions that require the regulator's approval for the closure of stations or parts of stations.
I trust that that process will produce an outcome at Lewisham and other Connex stations that is satisfactory to my hon. Friend and her constituents, and that any further measures that Connex may propose to enhance security at Lewisham stations and more generally will be the subject of extensive consultation before decisions or actions are taken. Measures should be introduced in a meaningful way, rather than be a paper exercise, as my hon. Friend has described.
186
As my hon. Friend knows, the Government have stressed to the railway industry the importance that they place on listening to passengers and on responding to their needs. That includes, but is not exclusively about, passengers with disabilities.
As my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London said at the rail summit on 25 February, between 12 per cent. and 14 per cent. of the population have some type of disability. Over the next 50 years, the proportion of older people in the population will increase from present levels of between 10 and 15 per cent. to between 20 and 30 per cent. The correlation between age and disability is well established; two thirds of disabled people are elderly. That substantial passengers' voice must be listened to by operators.
It is notable that improvements that are designed to help disabled and older people will almost invariably help the larger number of people who travel with small children, with baby buggies or who are laden with heavy suitcases or shopping. Accessibility improves patronage, as accessible buses have shown.
At the February rail summit, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport made it clear that proposals from train operating companies for renegotiation of their franchises would be considered against criteria that included the track record of the franchisee, on which he would consult widely, including via rail users' consultative committees, individual users and local groups; and the extent to which the franchisee was prepared to give passengers a greater voice in the level and standard of services.
Turning to security for rail users, I appreciate Connex's objective, but I repeat: I do not appreciate its style. Its objective in restricting access to stations in Lewisham and elsewhere in its south-eastern and south-central franchise areas is to improve security for passengers. That is in line with Government policy to reduce crime and the perception of crime on the railway, as elsewhere in society. Greater personal security will encourage use of the railway, which is one of the Government's key transport objectives.
Despite the low level of recorded crime on trains and at railway stations, fear of crime has a real impact on many people's lives. That is particularly true for women and older people. Fear of crime contributes to people being deterred from using public transport, particularly at night. It means that those people who can afford it travel by car, with all the resulting effects on congestion and pollution, and that those who cannot afford it are prevented from travelling.
Among other initiatives, the Government have developed, with a national steering group that includes rail organisations, passenger groups, British Transport police, Crime Concern and the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, the secure stations scheme—an accreditation scheme that was launched in 1998 to give public recognition to stations that work to create a safe environment for passengers and staff.
To gain accreditation, operators of individual stations must work with the British Transport police and other local partners to implement a range of security measures. Those must cover four main areas. The first is the design of the station, which must conform to standards that are judged by British Transport police to prevent and reduce crime, and to improve passenger perceptions. The second

187
is management of the stations. Management must take steps to prevent crime, to respond to incidents and to communicate effectively with passengers.
The third area is managing crime. Statistics of crime must be maintained and show, over 12 months before accreditation is considered, that crime is being controlled. The fourth area is passenger perceptions. Passengers must be surveyed to establish that they feel secure in using the station. The national rail survey that was announced at the February rail summit will include questions on perceptions of security.
Many train operating companies have already prioritised improving security by installing closed circuit television and help points, improving lighting and introducing rapid response arrangements. A secure station accreditation will prove to passengers that their local station is taking their security seriously.
A number of stations throughout the country have been accredited under the scheme and it is hoped that many more will become accredited. Hither Green, which Connex South Eastern operates in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Ms Prentice), is one of those currently accredited; the London termini of Victoria and King's Cross have also been accredited.
The Government have focused on railway stations because that is what passengers want. Research by Crime Concern on behalf of my Department revealed that the part of the journey that is spent on the vehicle is perceived as more secure than the beginning and end of the journey. Waiting at railway stations was a particular concern for many passengers; both men and women were less concerned about waiting at bus stops.
Research shows that, although each individual journey has a number of constituent parts, a passenger perceives the journey as a whole and the worst part of the journey colours the experience of the whole. Therefore, it is essential that transport operators, local authorities and other interested groups work together to improve passenger perceptions of the whole journey. If passengers feel unsafe waiting at the bus stop, or walking to and from the station, they may be deterred from using that mode of public transport at all.
The objectives, instructions and guidance that the Government issued to the franchising director in November 1997—a copy is in the Library—included a requirement for him to
"promote the personal security of passengers travelling by rail".
Since franchises were awarded, the franchising director has taken the opportunities for renegotiation that have arisen—when there has been a proposed change of control
188
of a train operating company, or a breach of the franchise—to obtain further commitments to security improvements. As my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford will be interested to learn, companies involved to date include Thames Trains, First North Western, Chiltern Railways and LTS Rail.
As my hon. Friend knows, the Government are committed to comprehensive civil rights for disabled people. Accessible public transport, within the framework of our integrated transport policy, is fundamental to delivering that commitment.
The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 placed duties on those providing goods, facilities or services to the public and those selling, letting or managing premises. Since 2 December 1996, it has been unlawful for service providers, landlords and others to treat disabled people less favourably for a reason related to their disability. For service providers, the Act included further stages for "later rights" to be met where reasonable to enable use by disabled people.
From October 1999, service providers have to make "reasonable adjustments" for disabled people, such as providing extra help, or making changes to the way in which they provide their services. From 2004, it is intended that service providers will have to make "reasonable adjustments" to the physical features of their premises to overcome physical barriers to access. That could include, for example, installing a ramp to enable wheelchair users to gain access that was previously available only by steps.
Railtrack and train operating companies were informed about those requirements by my Department and the Department for Education and Employment at the end of last year. The consultation included details of proposals for regulations and a new code of practice by the National Disability Council. The regulations and draft code will soon be laid before Parliament.
There are several other areas in which action has been, or is about to be taken by the Government. Under the Disability Discrimination Act, as of 1 January this year, all new classes of rail vehicles that come into service have to comply with the Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations 1998. Those include detailed specifications for wheelchair access, as well as requirements for clear colour contrast, for audible and visual announcements and for a range of other features to help people—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. We must now turn to the next debate.

Housing (Gloucestershire)
1 pm
Mr. Laurence Robertson: I am pleased to be able to introduce today's debate on housing projections for Gloucestershire, a subject that has occupied much of my time since I was elected almost two years ago. My postbag contains many letters from constituents who are concerned about protecting not only the villages and the areas where they live, but the entire county. They are not NIMBYs, but are genuinely concerned about ensuring that we pass on to our children at least some, and preferably most, of the beautiful countryside that we have inherited. We had the privilege of inheriting the countryside and we have no right to deny future generations such enjoyment and quality of life.
Let me make it clear at the outset that, in line with most Adjournment debates, I do not intend to make today's debate party political. I am not interested in scoring political points by arguing about which party wishes to build fewest houses or can boast the largest area of green belt. However, I shall first highlight some of the contradictions between the policies espoused by the Government and their actions and those of their inspector in respect of Gloucestershire. Secondly, I shall describe the nonsensical process that still occupies Gloucestershire county council and the inspector in attempting to agree a structure plan; and thirdly, 1 shall describe the effect that building a large number of houses in Gloucestershire will have on the environment and the countryside there.
I shall start with the contradictions. On 3 February this year, the Government tabled an amendment to a motion in the House. It was in the name of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. The Government emphasised their determination to protect the countryside and spoke of
"the Government's continued commitment to protecting the countryside, including Green Belts".
Yet in Gloucestershire, the Government inspector, in his examination-in-public report on the county's structure plan, actually promoted the idea of building in the green belt.
The Government amendment also spoke of
"the Government's commitment strictly to control development in the open countryside".
It is poor English, I know, but even worse, the same Government inspector promoted the idea of a new settlement in the open countryside that the Government said they wanted to protect.
Paragraph 63 of the Government's draft planning policy guidance, PPG3, states:
"The Government is not against new settlements".
So on the one hand, the Government boast of their commitment strictly to control development in the open countryside, yet on the other, they say that they are not against new settlements. Where do the Government think that those new settlements will be built if not in the open countryside? Where does the Government inspector think that the proposed new settlement in my constituency in Gloucestershire will be built if not in the open countryside?
Furthermore, in the Government amendment and in the new PPG3, the Government spoke of promoting development in existing towns and cities and building
190
60 per cent. of future houses on brown-field land, but what happens in areas with very little brown-field land such as Gloucestershire? Do the Government then approve building on green-belt land, on green fields and in the open countryside? What are the Government's policies in those cases? I would suggest that more clarification is needed. So too is a reappraisal by the Government inspector following his EIP report in Gloucestershire.
Gloucestershire county council's structure plan proposed building 50,000 houses by 2011. That meant 9,100 new houses in my Tewkesbury constituency. The Government inspector considered the structure plan and then—some would say led by developers—proposed 55,000 houses for the county. Due to his muddled thinking, that would mean 12,000 extra houses in Tewkesbury. How can that increase be justified? How can it be right when the area has so few brown-field sites? In writing his report, was the inspector—and the Government office for the south-west—not aware of the imminent publication of the revised household projections, which suggested that the south-west will require 49,000 fewer houses than was originally predicted? If so, why did he then propose 5,000 more houses for Gloucestershire?
The county wanted 50,000 houses, the inspector wanted 55,000 and the county council is considering the matter further. It has already put 100 modifications to the structure plan to public consultation and has suggested to the public that 53,000 is the right figure. I heard this morning that that figure is being amended to 50,000. What a complete farce. The problem is that despite the consultations, the people who live in Gloucestershire—the electorate—actually have a very limited say on the matter because the inspector and the Secretary of State have the power to overturn the decisions made by the democratically elected councillors and to ride roughshod over the wishes of the people who live in the area.
In other words, there is a gaping democratic deficit in the whole planning process. In addition, a great deal of taxpayers' money has been wasted in the course of the process in Gloucestershire—and it is nowhere near finished.
I therefore suggest that the Secretary of State use his powers wisely. If he did, he would properly educate his inspectors before sending them out into the country and allowing them to contradict the very policies that the Government are proposing. He would explain the meaning of sustainable development to his inspectors and he would ensure that a vast amount of taxpayers' money was not wasted on smokescreen planning processes. I would also suggest that the Secretary of State carefully consider the actual effect of his target of 60 per cent. of new housing being built on brown-field land. I appreciate that he has increased the figure from 50 per cent. and I applaud that, but the new target is of little comfort to the people of Gloucestershire, who will probably have to endure about 90 per cent. of new building on green-field sites, leaving only about 10 per cent. to be built on brown-field land. In Tewkesbury, probably 100 per cent. of new building will have to be on green-field sites. The Minister shakes his head, but I cannot imagine where houses will be built in Tewkesbury if it is not on green-field sites.

191
In other words, it is all well and good setting a national target of 60 per cent., but I would suggest that a target should be set for each county, thereby adding meaning and substance to what is at present mere philosophy. Again, PPG3 suggests that local areas should have such a target, but what does the Minister intend to do in areas which have very little brown-field land available, such as Gloucestershire? Will he allow them to build fewer houses? Again, the action should match the rhetoric.
The position in Gloucestershire needs reviewing for a number of reasons, including the shortage of brown-field sites in the county, the attractive countryside, the building that has already taken place, the fact that much of my constituency sits on a flood plain. There are many other reasons, not least the recently published household projection figures. For all those reasons, the inspector, or perhaps the Secretary of State, should be reducing the number of houses required for Gloucestershire, not increasing it.
I understand that only this morning, the county council proposed to reject the EIP figures and stick to the original 50,000 houses, as in its structure plan. Therefore, I hope that the Secretary of State will take no action against the council because if he does, he will be acting against the people of Gloucestershire. That would fly in the face of democracy and common sense, and would further contradict the Government's stated policy of wanting to protect the countryside.
A high housing figure for Gloucestershire would put pressure on the borough councils to build houses in the most inappropriate places. In Tewkesbury, where the recently published local plan was based on a lower housing figure, the council proposed building houses in an historic town which already struggles with too much traffic and cannot take any more cars on its small lanes, in a village where permission was once refused because the land was deemed to be unsuitable, on hundreds of people's allotments, in two separate villages where such building threatens coalescence and, again, on green-field sites and in the open countryside.
People say, "Of course we need houses"—but we do not know how many. Already, the 4.4 million prediction is being shown to be too high, and who can tell whether the trends of recent years will continue? Couples may not continue to break up as frequently as they do now, and house sharing may become more commonplace than it is now. As the Secretary of State said, on 29 March, in a written answer to a parliamentary question,
"Such trends can and do change".—[Official Report 29 March 1999; Vol. 328, c. 471.]
I was born in a town in north-west England, and lived there for 33 years before moving to live in the countryside; so I feel that I understand the needs of both town and country. I feel also that I understand homelessness, as, before I was elected to the House, I ran a major project to help homeless women in London. However, homelessness has little to do with a shortage of houses—the issue is much more complicated than that. Therefore, even if we built too few houses, people would not become homeless because there were not enough houses.
Building millions of new houses creates a self-fulfilling prophecy, in which houses are built, house prices are therefore restrained and—hey, presto—people buy those houses. However, that does not mean that those houses
192
were needed initially. Therefore, I welcome another statement in the amendment that I mentioned earlier, saying that
"the Government recognises the need to replace the previous predict and provide approach to the issue of household growth".
I genuinely welcome those words, and look forward to welcoming the action. I should unreservedly welcome such action if I were to witness it. So far, there has been no change in the approach—although the Secretary of State, in the written answer of 29 March, also said of the "predict and provide" process that "That policy is dead." It is not dead.
Even if higher housing requirements are justifiably predicted, they cannot necessarily be provided—and definitely not in every single area of the country—if we are to retain at least some of the countryside and avoid causing great damage to the environment. More houses means more damage to the environment. It means more cars and more car journeys, which further damage the environment.
A compromise available to the Government might be to encourage renovation of older properties. How many houses stand empty across the country? How many flats above shops stand empty which, if renovated, could help to regenerate towns and cities? But what encouragement is given to renovating existing properties when the value added tax rate on such renovation work is 17.5 per cent., whereas no VAT is chargeable on new houses built on green-field sites? The Government should correct that perverse situation by removing VAT from renovation work, and by charging VAT at the top rate on new build and green-field land.
We should not neglect the countryside and the environment in the clamour to build new houses, especially when they cannot be shown to be needed. Wanting to protect the countryside and to preserve green fields, hills, dales, farm land and beauty is not mere romanticism, as such an environment is one of the things that makes life worth living. We cannot continue taking land for building, for to do so would be to turn the United Kingdom into an undesirable urban sprawl, with the countryside being lost for ever to current and future generations.
1.13 pm
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) on the cogent way in which he has dealt with a difficult subject, and on the timing of his debate. The decisions that the Secretary of State will make on housing projections—how many houses will be built between now and 2016—in Gloucestershire will affect all the constituencies there, but particularly my hon. Friend's constituency, and my own constituency, approximately 85 per cent. of which is designated, in one way or another, for planning purposes, and which has the highest percentage of housing stock designated as listed buildings.
In a very short speech, my real message to the Minister is that we must get the numbers right. My hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury should be congratulated on the work that he has done to try to ensure that the number of new houses is set at 50,000 and no more, as that would be the appropriate number if the national average were followed. As a result of the examination in public,

193
the inspector decided that Gloucestershire should have a higher number of new houses, at 1.03 per cent., than the national average, which is set at 1.01 per cent.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury, I am very keen to prevent excessive building in rural areas. The manifesto of each of the three parties states that each party wishes to protect the environment. I believe that the sensible place to build houses is near to people's work, as doing so would avoid excessive use of motor cars, with all the environmental benefits that that brings. Some of the rural areas designated for new houses by Gloucestershire county council, after the Government's imposition of an excessive number of houses, are totally inappropriate for large-scale new settlements.
In the previous Parliament, the Minister and I both served on the Environment Select Committee. Therefore, he will know as well as I do that we are not using existing housing stock as well as we should, and that much of the housing survey shows that our existing housing stock could be better maintained. The proposal on VAT made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury is worth considering.
I also agree with my hon. Friend that we should do more to encourage people to live above shops. In many of our towns and cities, whole streets have hardly anyone living above shops. More should be done to ensure security of tenure, and council tax should be used to encourage larger shop owners and retail chains to persuade people to live above shops.
I agree with my hon. Friend also that we should not unnecessarily cover in houses our precious rural areas, particularly the green belt. Once those areas have been covered with houses, there will be no turning back. We should adopt a regional realism in housing policy. Why should Gloucestershire have to build houses in numbers above the national average? Why should it have to build above the south-western regional average? Why should those houses be imposed on Gloucestershire?
For the whole of the 18 years in which Conservative Members were in government, we rigorously protected the green belt and the rural countryside. I hope that the Government will do the same, in the interests of future generations.
1.17 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I congratulate the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) on securing this debate, on a subject to which I know that he attaches great importance. The hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) has also contributed to the debate. I tell him that, if he wants to pursue the matter in the same non-partisan spirit as that shown by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury, it is not terribly helpful to suggest that the Government are imposing figures on Gloucestershire, and that the previous Government did not do so. The reality is that the figures being debated were developed using a system that operated under the previous Government and have been inherited by the current Government. We are seeking to change the procedures, as I shall describe shortly. However, it is a travesty to pretend that the Government are trying impose something that the previous Government were not.
194
I tell the hon. Member for Tewkesbury that household growth is a difficult issue facing society. Some people would like to believe that such growth can be wished away and that no new houses have to be built. However, I think that he realises that that is not realistic. He is concerned with provision of people's housing needs, and appreciates that it is important that society should try to provide appropriately, although in a manner that does not damage the countryside. We have to consider estimates of prospective need for housing and to try to do the best that we can—recognising that household projections cannot be an absolutely accurate science, but that it is necessary to make the best possible estimates.
It may be useful to the House if I start by explaining how household projections are arrived at, and how they are translated into development plans. As the hon. Member for Tewkesbury will be aware, in announcing recently the latest household projection figures, the Secretary of State recognised that household growth may be slowing. In particular, the projections show that the number of new households projected to form in England over the 25 years between 1996 and 2021 is about 3.8 million, compared with the 4.4 million projected for the previous 25-year period, which will end in 2016.
The 3.8 million figure is derived principally by projecting previous patterns of population change and household formation, and should not be seen as a forecast or estimate. It is based entirely on what might be expected to occur if previous trends continue. It is heavily dependent on the assumptions. As the hon. Member for Tewkesbury pointed out, and as the Government are stressing, trends can and do change.
The suggestion from the latest figures is that the pace of household growth may be slowing down. Part of the underlying reason for that is that recent evidence has shown that cohabitation is increasing at a faster rate than expected, and there are also a smaller proportion of women who are widows or divorcees.
We must not think only in terms of numbers. We are keen to focus the debate on how we should plan for future homes in a sustainable way. The consultation paper, "Planning for the Communities of the Future"—which we published last year—set out the results of our analysis of the system that we inherited from the previous Administration for calculating and providing for the country's housing needs. The paper set out our strategy for promoting more sustainable patterns of development and encouraging urban renewal.
We are also seeking to ensure that, where development is needed outside, or adjacent to, urban areas, that must be sustainable and must be combined with an active approach towards the protection of the countryside. Those proposals represent a sustainable and comprehensive approach to meeting housing needs in the country well into the new millennium. They differ from the previous approach in that there is no longer adherence to the principle of "predict and provide". We are seeking to implement a principle of "plan, monitor and manage", recognising the need for planning and the need to monitor actual trends and to vary the arrangements according to experience.
We have also changed our approach to establishing the housing numbers by region. Our new draft planning policy guidance 11 on regional planning, which sets out our proposals for improving the preparation and content

195
of regional planning guidance, represents an important step in modernising the planning system and reflects our commitment to decentralised decision taking.
The new arrangements give greater responsibility to local authorities, through regional planning conferences, in preparing regional planning strategies, and should mean increased regional ownership of the policies and increased commitment to their delivery. Instead of the Government, the regional planning body will be responsible for preparing the draft regional strategy, including proposing the amount of additional housing needed in the plan period.
We have also recently announced household projections for each of the Government offices of the regions, and, again, those should not be regarded as forecasts or predictions. Other factors should equally be taken into account so that regional planning bodies should, against the background of need and capacity, take a realistic and responsible approach to planning future housing provision.
Of course we realise that similar information at sub-regional level will be useful as background for the regional planning process and the preparation of regional planning guidance, so we will be writing to the regional planning bodies to make relevant information available in a form consistent with that published as part of the last set of household projections in 1995. It takes longer to develop the figures sub-regionally, which is why they have not yet been published. As soon as we are satisfied that the figures are as accurate and appropriate as possible, we will publish them.
The new arrangements provide a more open and inclusive process for determining planning issues at the regional level. The new strategies, including the new housing figures, will be tested at public examinations by independent panels whose reports will be made public. The new procedure has been piloted in East Anglia, where a public examination was completed last month. The south-west regional planning guidance is still at draft stage, and is due for public examination early next year.
One of the key tasks of new-style regional planning guidance will be to provide guidance on the overall level of housing and its distribution within the region, making full use of previously developed land. In assessing the housing provision required for the 15 to 20-year period covered by the strategy, we expect the regional planning body to work with other regional stakeholders to establish the level of housing likely to be required to meet the region's housing needs.
In making the assessment, the Government's latest published household projections should be taken into account. Equally, urban capacity studies should be undertaken to explore the implications of changing policies and standards which would reduce the land take of new development while securing attractive residential environments. Against that background of need and capacity, the regional planning body should be able to take a realistic and responsible approach to future housing provision. It must be prepared to justify its views fully in public at the examination of the draft regional planning guidance. The structure plan and unitary development plan authorities will, of course, be party to the process.
Once the housing requirement has been established and confirmed by the Secretary of State, following the public examination, the presumption is that structure plans and
196
unitary plans should then focus on the broad distribution and the location of growth. It is the essence of the plan, monitor and manage approach that both the assessment of housing requirements and the distribution within the region should be kept under review. If there are signs of under-provision or over-provision, we expect both the regional planning guidance and development plans to be reviewed accordingly. We need to work together to ensure that the new approach is developed in as constructive a context as possible.
I shall deal now with the housing figures in the review of the Gloucestershire structure plan. Regional planning guidance figures were agreed by the authorities in the region in 1994. They showed that 53,000 extra homes were needed in the county between 1991 and 2011, based on 1989-based household projections. In reviewing the structure plan, the county council took a figure of 50,000 extra homes as its starting point. Of this total, about 9,100 were allocated to Tewkesbury.
The plan was subject to public scrutiny at an examination in public in September 1998. The hon. Member for Tewkesbury said that this was held by a Government inspector. I should stress that those holding the examination form an independent panel. They are drawn from the Government inspectorate, but they report to the county council. Their role is to assess the evidence submitted by all who contribute to the examination in public.
Officials from the Government office for the south-west, who attended the examination, pressed for greater account to be taken of the need to focus development on the urban areas, to promote recycling of land—more than was provided for previously—and higher densities to reduce land take and to ensure greater integration between housing, employment and transportation. After considering the representations, the panel recommended that the housing provision should be increased to 55,000.
The matter was then presented to the county council. I had understood—although the hon. Member for Tewkesbury has given me new evidence today—that the county council had proposed that the overall housing provision should revert to 53,000. If the council is now proposing another figure, clearly it will have to demonstrate sound evidence for reaching it; it would be inappropriate simply to pluck a figure out of thin air. I do not know the basis for that figure and will therefore say no more. However, the figures should be tested at examinations in public, and the county council should reach a considered view. The matter will come to the Secretary of State in due course and it would be inappropriate for me to say more.
Mr. Laurence Robertson: I am grateful to the Minister for showing his customary courtesy in giving way. His remarks form the thrust of what I am saying. Will the Minister reject what the county council is saying locally? He has referred to the broad-brush approach of the inspector, but the building of houses on the green belt and in the open countryside was promoted. That is why the report is contradictory and flawed.
Mr. Raynsford: I cannot comment on such details. However, a county council that has had a long time to consider the matter clearly must consider all the evidence

197
before it reaches a view. It would be surprising if—having come to the view a little while ago that it was to recommend 53,000—the council now, according to the hon. Gentleman, is suggesting 50,000. I am not sure what the basis for that is, and I cannot comment. However, it is in the interests of all concerned that the plan reaches adoption as soon as possible because we cannot allow the situation—which the hon. Gentleman described as a farce—to go on much longer.
In conclusion, the way forward lies in building on the positive options for meeting housing requirements and protecting the countryside. There is much more common ground than is sometimes acknowledged. Everyone wants to see as much land recycling as possible, and more use of brown-field sites. Everyone wants to see more sustainable patterns of development. Everyone wants to protect the countryside and to help to regenerate our urban areas.
We are conscious of the need to improve the renovation of existing homes. That is why we have increased investment through the capital receipts initiative, and why we have given particular focus to the home improvement agencies that operate locally to advise home owners on their scope for getting grants and assistance to improve their homes. We want to do more to encourage the regeneration of existing homes and the improvement of existing properties.
Everyone wants to ensure that people are properly housed. What we are trying to do is to develop an agenda as pro-actively as possible, and there is a great deal more work to be done in this field. We have a full programme of revising the relevant planning policy guidance notes. We have now published—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. We now come to the next debate.

Colombia
1.30 pm
Mr. Paul Goggins: A few weeks ago, in February, I visited Colombia as a member of an international delegation that included parliamentarians from seven European countries and representatives of Catholic non-governmental organisations based in Europe and north America. The visit was arranged by the Colombian Catholic Bishops Conference. I was nominated by the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development, the official Catholic aid agency for England and Wales, and an appropriate entry has been made on the register.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) was also on the delegation, nominated by the Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund. The purpose of the delegation was to witness at first hand the circumstances of the people of Colombia and to pay special attention to issues of human rights. We were also asked to monitor the impact of recent attempts by the Colombian president, Andres Pastrana, to initiate a new peace process.
I appreciate the opportunity to bring to the attention of the House some of the issues that were raised during our visit. Colombia is a complex place, full of paradoxes. It is a beautiful country, rich in natural resources, yet it is scarred by the effects of an internal armed conflict that has lasted for 40 years. It has an impressive economic record, yet more than half its people live in poverty.
On paper, Colombia is a model democracy, but in reality it is one of the most violent societies in the world. With a population of 35 million, it is estimated that, last year alone, more than 30,000 people were murdered. The majority of the killings resulted from street violence and delinquency but a substantial number were a result of the armed conflict.
There are two main guerrilla groups, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, known as the FARC, and the National Liberation Army, or the ELN. They have been fighting successive Governments since the 1960s. In addition, there is the United Self Defence Groups of Colombia, an umbrella organisation of right-wing paramilitary groups, led by Carlos Castario. All three have substantial resources, derived in large part from drug trafficking. The state forces, ill equipped and largely conscripted, are simply unable to control them. The situation is further complicated by strong evidence of collusion between the paramilitaries and state forces.
The main victims of the armed conflict, much of which takes place in remote rural areas, are the people who have been displaced, forced to flee from their homes because of the violence. The images of the ethnic Albanians forced to flee Kosovo are fresh in our minds and have disturbed and angered us all. The experience of the displaced people of Colombia is also a shocking story. It is estimated that more than 1 million have been displaced by the violence in the past 10 years. The Colombian Government are more cautious about the figures, but they accept that about 350,000 people have been displaced in the past three years.
Members of the delegation visited several towns and cities in the north and north west of Colombia. Some went to Barrancabermeja and Cartagena. I was with the group

199
that visited Medellin and Quibdó. Quibdó is in a department called Chocó, an area rich in natural resources such as gold, silver and platinum. Importantly for the paramilitary and guerrilla forces, it also includes the strategically important gulf of Urabá, which provides a route in for arms and out for drugs.
With a population of about 30,000, Quibdó is the temporary home of four communities of displaced people, numbering 2,000 altogether and including 600 families. I met 400 of them—men, women and children—in a disused basketball stadium that had been their home for 27 months. Their mattresses and belongings were scattered around the areas where once spectators had cheered on their local team. In the time that we spent with them, we heard their testimony and witnessed, through a deeply moving dramatic presentation enacted by members of the community, exactly how the paramilitaries had forced them to flee.
The impact of displacement is unspeakable. It traumatises those involved. Family and community structures break down and people are left to live in deep poverty and insecurity. In theory, Colombian law 387 gives displaced people a right to health care, housing and education. In reality, the displaced people of Quibdó have been abandoned by both the local and the national authorities. Fortunately, they at least survive, thanks to the humanitarian support provided by the local church and international NGOs. In fact, much of the funding for that work comes from the European Union.
Some displaced people have formed themselves into what are known as communities of peace. They provide a neutral zone; their members are unarmed and do not support any of the military groups. They are a living symbol of what Colombia could be like if the war were brought to an end. It is pleasing to note that the peace communities have received financial support from our own Department for International Development.
The peace communities are under increasing attack, in particular from the paramilitaries, who accuse them of being in sympathy with the guerrillas. On Sunday 4 April, 10 men armed with guns and grenades walked in to the community of San José de Apartadó and assassinated three of its members. In the past two years, more than 50 of its members have been brutally murdered in similar fashion.
Last Wednesday, 7 April, 12 members of the peace community of San Francisco de Asís were kidnapped by the paramilitaries. On the following two days, the bodies of 11 of the kidnap victims were found. Some showed signs of torture; some had had their throats cut. Other communities face similar experiences. In Barrancabermeja, 10 people were killed only a week after we left. I learned only this morning that a further nine people were murdered there last week. For those left behind, there is fear, insecurity and often further displacement.
It is extremely worrying that those in the church and the NGOs who support communities of displaced people are also being accused by the paramilitaries of collusion with the guerrillas. Their staff are increasingly targeted and threatened. Some organisations have reported that they are being forced to limit the humanitarian assistance that they give.
The killings are not one-sided. The FARC and the ELN continue to carry out appalling atrocities, including the recent murder of three Americans working in support of
200
a community of indigenous Indians: a group that has been badly hit by the violence. This Monday, an internal flight to Bogotá was hijacked and the 46 people on board kidnapped. According to the latest information that we have, six hostages have been released but the rest are still missing. It is alleged that the action was carried out by the ELN. Every murder and kidnap of innocent civilians that takes place as a result of the armed conflict is wrong and should be condemned.
It is easy to be depressed about the level of violence in Colombia and the plight of the displaced people, but we should recognise that there are signs of hope. The strongest cause for optimism is the dignity and bravery of ordinary people, many of whom take extraordinary risks in the pursuit of justice and peace.
In a 1997 referendum, 10 million Colombians voted in favour of what is called the peace mandate. The Catholic Church has established the National Commission for Conciliation, a high-profile body dedicated to finding an end to the conflict. Crucially, last summer Colombia elected a new president, Andrés Pastrana, who has dedicated himself to the peace process.
Despite many obstacles and set backs, President Pastrana is striving to develop a dialogue with the FARC and the ELN. He has introduced a new military penal code to strengthen the integrity of the state forces and to break the connection with the paramilitaries. He has taken steps to strengthen the protection of human rights workers and backed measures to reduce the alarmingly high levels of impunity.
In an address that President Pastrana gave to the United Nations in January, he said:
"Forced displacement, which has recently reached growing and complex proportions, requires special treatment. Every day hundreds of families find themselves adrift, homeless, with the uncertainty and anguish resulting from not having a roof to shelter them.
Our aim is not limited to catering for their immediate need … we are particularly interested in guaranteeing their return home or their voluntary relocation in areas where they can lead a dignified life and give them development alternatives that will ensure lasting solutions."
President Pastrana has also announced Plan Colombia—a $3.5 billion strategy aimed especially at supporting new, sustainable livelihoods in the most remote areas of Colombia. Tackling poverty must be high on the Colombian Government's agenda; as we heard on many of our visits, there can be no peace without justice, and there can be no justice while the gap between rich and poor remains so large. In his ambitious strategy for national renewal and reconciliation, President Pastrana seeks and deserves the support of the international community. However, he must demonstrate that he can turn his fine words into reality.
I want to use the opportunity of this debate to ask my hon. Friend the Minister to make urgent representations to the Colombian Government with regard to displaced people and those who work in support of them. I ask him to remind President Pastrana of the commitments that he made in Geneva to take "emergency actions" and to "ensure lasting solutions". I ask my hon. Friend to prevail on the Colombian Government to guarantee the safety of unarmed civilians who live within communities of displaced people and of the staff of the NGOs and the church who are providing humanitarian aid.
Although I applaud the sincere efforts of President Pastrana to move along the road of peace, the guarantee of basic human rights cannot be separated from that search.

201
I hope that the president will make a breakthrough in his dialogue with the guerrillas, but true peace will come only when the ordinary people of Colombia can lead their lives without fear of murder, kidnap and displacement.
Of course we must also take action ourselves. I urge the Government to do all that they can to reduce the flow of arms to the guerrillas and paramilitary forces in Colombia. Most of those arms are made in, and sold from, the developed world. In addition, we must redouble our efforts to tackle cocaine and heroin abuse. The demand for those drugs in our country ultimately funds the war in Colombia.
I urge the Government to continue to support the work of NGOs in Colombia. During my visit, I felt extremely humble in the presence of so many people who take personal risks every day in the pursuit of justice and peace. They deserve our affirmation and encouragement. It is important that we continue to fund projects that not only give humanitarian assistance, but enhance the capacity of local communities to participate fully in the search for peace.
It was clear from what we heard during our visit that the British ambassador in Bogotá has already earned considerable respect during the short time that he has been there. He promised that he would visit Quibdó and find out about the plight of the displaced people there. I hope that, in due course, my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to report on the ambassador's visit and on any action taken as a result. Given the assurances made by Mr. Thorpe when we met him, I am sure that he will already be responding to the deteriorating situation in the Chocó region. Again, I urge my hon. Friend to impress on our ambassador the importance of UK involvement in initiatives that support the peace process.
I know that there are no easy answers to the conflict in Colombia, but I also know that the vast majority of people in Colombia want peace and it is our responsibility to do whatever we can to support them. The people of Colombia left a deep impression me, as I suspect that they did on my hon. Friend when he visited them. In that spirit, I look forward with great interest to his response.
1.44 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Mr. Goggins) for his speech. He spoke with the feeling and human compassion that epitomises his response to the world in general, but I know that he has been deeply moved by his recent experiences in Colombia. He raised a number of issues and I shall try to respond to his specific points.
It is precisely because the Government have a publicly stated commitment to pursue human rights globally that we have a specific obligation to pursue the search for improved human rights in Colombia. That is our foreign policy priority generally and it is an important plank specifically in our bilateral relationship with Colombia. We have already had significant exchanges with the previous Government, the present Government and a considerable number of other groups in Colombian society. We can achieve progress through the type of constructive dialogue in which my hon. Friend has taken part and we are anxious to ensure that our exchanges are productive and not merely an exchange of formalities.
202
My hon. Friend gave a fair account of the situation in Colombia. For several decades, that country has been beset by a three-way war in a state afflicted historically by a classic guerrilla movement of the left, of the type formerly seen in large parts of the world. Colombia is one of the few countries where that still exists as part of the political reality. However, in addition, there has been the rise of the perhaps even more unpleasant paramilitary groups during recent years. Such groups owe little to ideology, but a lot to banditry and the most brutal thuggery. My hon. Friend's accounts of some of the murders that took place recently are testimony of the vileness of those groups. The matter is further complicated by the fact that drugs fund a considerable level of activity by the paramilitaries and the guerrillas.
In that context, my hon. Friend refers to the fact that about a million people have been displaced. He is right to draw the attention of the House and to the people of this country to the reality of displacement. We know what displacement means from the recent harrowing scenes in Kosovo; the word does not merely describe people being asked to move home, it describes the forced uprooting of people from the communities—from towns, societies and families—that are their normal support. We know how horrendous that is in Kosovo. As my hon. Friend is aware, it is just as horrendous in Colombia because such displacement often occurs at the point of a gun or, at best, when fear becomes so overriding that the most logical decision is to flee.
According to the Colombian NGO, CODHES, 1998 saw the displacement of almost 10,000 people from their homes in the department of Chocó of which Quibdó is the capital. We are not clear how many of those were economic migrants, but it is true that significant numbers of people were displaced by violence between guerrillas, paramilitaries and the state. We have no specific numbers for those displaced in Quibdó rather than in Chocó as a whole, but our embassy in Bogotá estimates that the figure must be several thousand—my hon. Friend mentioned that several thousand people were living in the old stadium in Quibdó.
The increased guerrilla and paramilitary activity in Chocó, especially in the north of the department along the Atrato river, has been the major cause of that displacement in recent times. It has been a problem only during the past two years; as recently as 1996, there was no serious displacement problem in that area.
An additional problem is the difficulty of providing protection for the displaced people and the NGOs in Chocó. Chocó is a poor, remote and traditionally lawless part of Colombia. There are power struggles between the ELN and the paramilitaries and there is also a small FARC presence. The presence of those three groups makes safeguarding displaced people and NGOs extremely difficult. I, too, would like to pay tribute to the work of Peace Brigades International and to the bravery of the volunteers. Through their work, they are able to provide the sort of protection in Chocó, Uraba and elsewhere that the armed forces cannot provide. One of the tragedies of Colombia is that, as it is often described, it is a country without a state. Sometimes, that description is all too graphic an account of the way in which a state is not able to operate in the way that we would expect.
We have raised the issue of the safety of human rights workers with the Colombian Government on a number of occasions, both bilaterally and as part of the EU, and have

203
called for the implementation of measures to protect them. I have also raised specific cases on a number of occasions. I draw the House's attention to the cases of Mario Calderon, Elsa Alvarado and Carlos Alvarado who were brutally murdered in Colombia some time ago. That case has resulted in a lot of interest in the UK because the killers have not been brought to justice. There have been several arrests, but the problems in the Colombian judicial system mean that no one has been brought to trial yet. The most likely suspect is Castatño, the leader of one of the paramilitary groups, who is presumably immune from the process of justice to the extent that he is protected by that group. That is an outrage and a tragedy because the brutal murder of people who aimed to protect the innocent must be deplored. We must try to build a stronger structure in Colombia to deal with such cases.
Both national and local government have been able to provide only limited humanitarian assistance to people in Quibdó. In addition to being one of the poorest departments in Colombia, Chocó has severe problems of corruption and lack of finance. However, outside assistance is being provided to the department. The European Community Humanitarian Office provided emergency humanitarian assistance to 5,000 displaced people in Quibdó in 1998. It has also provided additional funding to assist displaced people more widely in Chocó this year, and a Spanish NGO has also provided about $280,000.
The UK is also playing its part in assisting the people of Quibdó. We have supported two projects aimed at the local community. The ambassador and embassy officials in Bogota often visit trouble spots, both at the invitation of interested parties and on their own initiative. A visit to the department of Chocó is high on the list of our embassy's priorities. I cannot give my hon. Friend a specific date for the visit, but it is likely to take place soon.
It would be of great benefit if the embassy were to travel as part of a European Union group, both in terms of staff safety and the visit's effect. A date for such a visit will be discussed at the EU heads of mission meeting due to take place in Bogota today. The main objective of a visit would be to assess the displaced problem as it currently stands and identify the best way to provide practical assistance.
I would also like to say a few words about displacement and the human rights situation in Colombia in more general terms. The Colombian Government have been engaged in peace talks with both the FARC and the ELN, but, sadly, the talks were suspended on 19 January by the FARC who demanded that the Government take action against right-wing paramilitaries before talks could be renewed. Although the paramilitaries operate autonomously and the Government have little control over their activities, there have recently been welcome signs of an increased determination by the Government to tackle the paramilitary problem. We hope that, when talks are resumed, they will lead to a meaningful settlement.
Significant problems continue to exist. My hon. Friend referred to Monday's hijacking of an Avianca Fokker aircraft on an internal flight. In addition to four non-Colombians—an Italian, an Ecuadorean, a United States citizen and the Hungarian pilot—there were children and nuns on board, a clear reminder that no one is safe from the internal problems that beset Colombia. The latest information that we have is that the hostages
204
were released unharmed and put on board a boat. That boat has left the immediate area, but, sadly, nothing more has been heard of them. Until they re-emerge, uncertainty about their fate remains.
On the whole, though, there are encouraging signs that the peace process, which represents the best prospect of significant improvement in human rights for all Colombians, is still in forward gear. We welcome and support President Pastrana's commitment to finding a lasting solution to Colombia's internal conflict. Following his election, and before he took over the presidency formally, one of President Pastrana's first actions was an almost sensational effort to meet guerrillas in Colombia to demonstrate his personal and passionate commitment to the peace process.
I have met the president—and his special representative on peace—and I am convinced of his ambition to drive the peace process forward as one of his Government's highest priorities. We are encouraged by dialogue that has taken place between the Colombian Government and the various parties to the conflict.
There have also been signs that the Colombian Government have begun to address the serious problems of internal displacement, a point that my hon. Friend asked me to raise with them. A presidential adviser on displaced people has been appointed and is working with the office that the UN High Commissioner for Refugees has established in Colombia. The UK has contributed £200,000 to the running of that office.
In addition, and partly in response to international pressures, there are signs that the Colombian Government have begun to address the problem of the paramilitaries. It is a matter of record that there has in the past been clear collusion between members of the armed forces and the paramilitaries in Colombia. I have met the head of the Colombian armed forces, who clearly desires to distance the forces from the paramilitaries and to act against those in the forces who have any degree of collusion and complicity. That is welcome.
Recently, several senior army officers have been compulsorily retired for alleged links with paramilitaries, and, as recently as last week, an army colonel was arrested on charges of alleged involvement in a paramilitary massacre in July 1997. Although that shows the historic complicity of the army in human rights abuses, it also shows a determination on the part of the prosecution service and the armed forces high command to investigate such incidents and to bring the perpetrators to justice.
I raised that matter with President Pastrana, who made it clear that he is determined to root out of the armed forces those responsible for those incidents. He personally appointed the current head of the armed forces, whom he trusts and whom he hopes will solve the problems of the armed forces. Those are steps in the right direction, although I cannot tell my hon. Friend or the House that there is not still a long way to go.
Our commitment to the search for peace is absolute, and our objective is to ensure that human rights remains at the top of the Colombian agenda. We can achieve that by engaging the Colombian Government in dialogue at every opportunity. As a sign of our commitment, we support a number of grass roots initiatives designed to

205
promote respect for human rights. Our embassy is in frequent and detailed contact with NGOs and large sections of Colombian society.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: With the permission of my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Mr. Goggins), whose debate this is, may I say that the British embassy and our ambassadors have an honourable record in Colombia in supporting useful schemes? Can the Minister assure us that the embassy may have an increased fund, because its work on the ground has made a difference in the past and may do so again in future?
Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend has a strong interest in Colombia, and she and I have discussed the subject several times. The Government have introduced a human rights fund administered by the Foreign Office that allows us to fund directly the kind of activity so desperately needed in Colombia. We support the worthwhile projects to which my hon. Friend referred, and we shall continue to do so, partly because the exchange with NGOs gives
206
protection to brave people who are potential victims of the ruthless, evil people who sometimes populate Colombian politics.
The British Government take every opportunity to raise our concerns with the Colombian Government. We regularly remind them of the strength of feeling in Britain about human rights, both in general and over specific issues. I know that President Pastrana is committed to the human rights agenda, and the appointment of Vice President Bell as the Minister for Human Rights is a significant gesture. I will meet Vice President Bell on 27 April, during his visit to the UK, and I will again take the opportunity to raise the issues that concern both my hon. Friends.
The Government will continue to monitor the situation in Colombia and take a real interest in that country's development. It matters in the same way as Kosovo does—because our fellow human beings are suffering dreadfully. We have a responsibility to play our part in resolving their problems.
It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions
  INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

    Aid Conditions (Zimbabwe)
    Mr. Philip Hammond: If she will link good governance criteria to the provision of aid for Zimbabwe. [79103]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): As the White Paper on international development makes clear, good government is essential to the economic and social policies that are essential for the reduction of poverty. Our country strategies apply this to all our programmes, 20 of which have been published so far. Our country strategy for Zimbabwe will be published this month.
    Mr. Hammond: I thank the Secretary of State for her answer. Does she agree that Robert Mugabe's attempt to confiscate farmland is neither economically sustainable nor politically responsible? If so, what steps is she prepared to take to emphasise that view to the Government of Zimbabwe by redirecting aid from that country to other poor Commonwealth countries that have shown themselves willing and able to respect the rule of law and the right to private property?
    Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman comes to this question very late. It has been an issue since the Government was formed. We made it clear within weeks of the election that there was a strong case for land redistribution in Zimbabwe—the farmers' association agrees with that—but that it must be voluntary and transparent. Zimbabwe's own law requires voluntarism. There is no question of our imposing the condition; Zimbabwe's own law says that there can be no confiscation. We have made that consistently clear, we have worked to form an international coalition to hold that position, and we have had some influence.
    I share the hon. Gentleman's worries about Zimbabwe, but it would not be right to abandon, simply because its Government are behaving badly, a country in which poverty is growing. We must remain engaged and try to help those who are hurting, but we must also try to secure a commitment to better policies. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about land reform, but I do not agree that as a consequence of what is happening we should exit Zimbabwe.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: I recognise and accept what my right hon. Friend says. There is considerable poverty in Zimbabwe, and it has major problems. Do we not have to tackle those problems? The land issue goes back to the Lancaster House settlement 18 or 19 years ago. The problem needs settling, but progress is being made, and there is an intention to pay compensation rather than confiscating land. Must we not do all that we can to ensure that the problem is solved in a way acceptable to the landowners, so that we can then tackle the problem of poverty in Zimbabwe?
    Clare Short: I agree that poverty is growing in Zimbabwe, but if that country were well governed,
    208
    it could have a bright future. It has a highly educated population and great natural resources, and there is no reason why it should suffer from its present problems. I do not agree that land reform is any longer an issue for Britain in terms of the Lancaster House settlement. Agreements were made then and they have been kept. Zimbabwe needs good economic management, which will give proper opportunities to poor farmers. If land redistribution were handled in that way, it would be beneficial and enjoy support throughout Zimbabwe. We keep being given assurances, but they are resiled from. That is why, I regret to say, progress is not being made.
    Mr. Roy Beggs: I recognise the widespread good will that is shown towards debt relief for the poorest countries. Nevertheless, will the Secretary of State continue to emphasise the establishment of democratic processes and proper accountability, to ensure that the debt relief and funding made available to poorer nations are properly used?
    Clare Short: I agree that in Zimbabwe, and elsewhere, debt relief should not be given unconditionally. Otherwise, Governments who have borrowed money and wasted it, spent it on luxury projects or frittered it away corruptly would be able to write those debts off and reborrow. That would not do anyone any good. The link between debt reduction and policies that will really bring benefits for the poor is essential. It is there, but in my view it needs strengthening.

    Fair Trade
    Mrs. Maria Fyfe: What steps she is taking to encourage consumer interest in fair trade products. [79104]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): I, my right hon. Friend and officials in our Department take every possible opportunity to promote fair trade products and support ethical trading in mainstream business.
    Mrs. Fyfe: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Will he join me in congratulating both those who have persuaded their local shops to put fair trade products on their shelves and the shops that have taken part in raising the sale of such products to new heights? Does he agree that the House has helped by buying its coffee and tea as fair trade products; and that if local authorities and other bodies followed suit, it would give great practical help in dealing with poverty in the developing world while allowing us to enjoy the quality of the products?
    Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I hope that she will join me in congratulating our Department's Parliamentary Private Secretary, who, as Chairman of the Catering Committee, has ensured that the House has fair trade coffee and tea. The Secretary of State has also written to 500 major companies asking them to follow suit by stocking fair trade coffee in their vending machines. The House's example could be followed by others, including local authorities. I hope that hon.

    209
    Members will encourage their local authorities to provide fair trade coffee and tea. It would come much better from ordinary Members than from big brother Government.
    Mr. Bowen Wells: Talking of fair trade, will the Minister consider the report, published today, of the World Trade Organisation on fair trade for bananas? Will he call together all the parties involved so that we can negotiate fair trade for bananas from the vulnerable producing states of the Caribbean?
    Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman—I nearly said "my hon. Friend". Yesterday, I met representatives of the Caribbean banana exporters and came to a similar conclusion. We need a negotiated settlement acceptable to everyone. The WTO ruling suggests some ways forward, which we are examining with the other Departments involved, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. We hope that we can find an agreed way forward as quickly as possible.

    Cuba
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: What plans she has to provide bilateral aid to Cuba; and if she will make a statement. [79105]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): We provide limited direct assistance to Cuba through our small grants scheme administered by the British embassy in Havana. We also contribute help to Cuba through the European Commission Humanitarian Office, and the Commonwealth Development Corporation has been operating there since 1995.
    Mr. Fabricant: The Minister knows that I am not the man to support Castro and his regime, but considerable damage was done by Hurricanes Mitch and George to Santiago de Cuba and Guantanamo provinces. Does he agree that the people of Cuba should not suffer because of their Government? Can he take further steps, as the United States is doing, to ensure that the people of Cuba get aid—especially the medical community, which is unable even to obtain drugs and textbooks because of currency problems?
    Mr. Foulkes: We are concerned to help poor people in any country, irrespective of their Government. When opportunities have arisen, we have expressed our concern about human rights in Cuba, as we have for other countries. We are providing substantial help to Cuba. In 1997, nearly £2 million was provided through the European Community programme. We are keen for the CDC to get more active in Cuba. There are ways in which we can help without necessarily having a bilateral programme. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that that is a substantial contribution.
    Dr. Norman A. Godman: While I have every sympathy and respect for the Cuban people, there have been allegations of abuses of human rights. The Pope himself voiced such concerns when he
    210
    visited Cuba. Is there not a working party of ambassadors examining such problems? What is it doing about those serious allegations?
    Mr. Foulkes: That point is more a matter for my colleagues in the Foreign Office, but we, too, are concerned about human rights. The Cubans have recently become an observer in Lomé with the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries. If it wishes to become a full member, it will have to take account of our representations and those of other countries on human rights.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: Would it not be ironic if the Government, who are trying—however ineffectively—to bring down a former communist dictator in Serbia were to prop up a current communist dictator in Cuba through aid supplied by the Department for International Development?
    Mr. Foulkes: As I said earlier, we are concerned about poor people who are suffering, whether under Slobodan Milosevic or in any other circumstance. We are bringing help to them. The comparison made by the hon. Gentleman is, if not odious, certainly not apt.

    Genetically Manipulated Organisms
    Dr. Lynne Jones: What assistance she plans to give to developing countries to enable them to assess the risks and benefits of genetically manipulated organisms. [79106]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): We will shortly publish a policy statement on genetically modified organisms in developing countries. As my hon. Friend will know, genetic manipulation is a much wider and less precise concept. Our aim is to help to equip developing countries to manage the safe development and use of those technologies and to apply the guidelines for safety in biotechnology provided by the United Nations Environment Programme.
    Dr. Jones: I am glad that my right hon. Friend agrees that biotechnology has the potential to improve the yield and quality of food protection in developing countries. For example, high levels of blindness in India could be dramatically reduced if the corn used in traditional meals included GM corn containing high levels of vitamin A. However, it is also important that Governments have access to high-quality technical information that is independent of commercial considerations, and that is a proper role for overseas aid. It is also important that Governments should be able to reject technologies that they consider to be harmful—for example, the terminator gene. How confident is my right hon. Friend that they will continue to have that power, given the might of the multinational companies, possibly backed up by the World Trade Organisation?
    Clare Short: I agree with almost all the points that my hon. Friend makes. The technology can bring benefits, but countries need the capacity to understand the pros and cons, to manage the process and diminish the risk. The statement that we are about to publish outlines those

    211
    concerns and the ways in which we will work with other countries to increase their capacity to manage the technology and make decisions about the use of it.
    I also agree that the danger is that major companies will misuse their power to force the technology on to countries without their knowledge, through the import of either seeds or food that is a product of the technology. We need agreement on a biosafety protocol to the convention on biological diversity, which lays down rules on trans-boundary use of GMOs. We are working for that, although we did not get agreement on it at the last talks, as my hon. Friend will know. We must enhance the capacity of developing countries to make decisions, and we need an international convention.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree that Britain has an enviable reputation among developing countries for good scientific advice. Will she use her skilled and perhaps robust diplomacy with the three Departments of State currently giving advice on GMOs—the DTI, DETR and MAFF—to obtain a clear statement of the Government's policy on GMOs? It certainly confuses the House and I am sure that it confuses developing nations.
    Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that when the statement of Government policy was issued the interests of developing countries were not covered. That was a serious omission. The policy statement that we are about to publish will make up for that omission and will adopt the policy that I outlined to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones). It did take a little robust movement in Whitehall to remind other Government Departments of the important interests of developing countries, which is one of the major duties of my Department. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased with the document when it is published shortly.
    Mr. David Heath: Does the Secretary of State agree that the interests of American big business, whether Monsanto, the Chiquita corporation or any other, are not synonymous with free trade, leaving aside the social and environmental consequences of what they peddle? Will she ensure that protection is given to developing countries so that they are not forced to take inappropriate imports or technology?
    Clare Short: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that some multinational companies see free trade as in their interests and others prefer deals with countries that have high tariffs behind which their trade can be protected. Not all such companies promote free trade. We are in an interesting situation in which a majority of the members of the World Trade Organisation are developing countries and, as they start to use their influence, that will change the control and domination of trade issues in the world economy so that it becomes more equitable.
    As to genetically modified technologies being pushed on countries that are not in a position to manage them, the answers lie in strengthening those countries' capacity and in securing a biosafety protocol for the convention on biological diversity.
    Mr. Alan Simpson: The Secretary of State will know how many developing countries depend on the developed world's adopting a
    212
    clear position that defends the right of the developing world to apply the precautionary principle in terms of food health and environmental health. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that, in the negotiations and discussions she has described, the United Kingdom will clearly defend farmers' rights to save seeds and will support proposals from the developing nations to pursue sustainable agriculture, which will in turn prevent ownership of the food chain being transferred from local communities to food multinationals?
    Clare Short: I have made it clear that we agree absolutely that developing countries need the capacity to manage the technology for themselves and to know what agreements are being made. We require an international convention to ensure that technologies cannot be traded into countries without their knowledge and consent. In addition, we help to fund the international agricultural research bodies that are creating a bank of existing gene technology world wide. A condition of our funding is that there should be no charge for that service, which aims to protect that knowledge and biodiversity for developing countries and to ensure that it is not abused and patented against their interests.

    EU Institutions
    Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley): What representations she has received on reducing the proportion of British aid delivered via EU institutions. [79107]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): Many people are concerned about the poor quality of EC development assistance. We share those concerns and have published proposals for improvement. We inherited from the previous Administration commitments to the EC that now absorb 30 per cent. of our budget, but are working to ensure that more sensible budget levels are set in future. In Berlin last month, the European Council agreed that commitments under the category that covers external assistance should remain at current levels for the next seven years. That compares with an increase of 180 per cent. agreed at the Edinburgh summit in 1992.
    Mr. Evans: I am grateful for that response. The Minister will be aware that British aid is regarded highly throughout the world—which is more than can be said for British aid that is distributed through European Union institutions. The priorities of such institutions are completely different from our own and their aid often does not reach the poorest countries. Many view such assistance as very bureaucratic, and it takes a long time to arrive.
    What steps can be taken to ensure that the European institutions distributing our money are far more efficient and effective? If they cannot become more effective, what steps will the Minister take to ensure that the aid currently distributed through European Union institutions is repatriated so that we can distribute the money more fairly and efficiently?
    Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman is being helpful—which is more than can be said for some Opposition Members. We have published 18 specific proposals for improvement and we have met our counterparts from the

    213
    other 14 Governments in the European Union, whom we are getting on board. We have had regular meetings with Members of the European Parliament and non-governmental organisations, who have now signed up to a British agenda for securing more effective use of European Community money, greater delegation to the countries concerned and more poverty-oriented allocations. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman supports that approach, which received the unanimous and uncritical support of the relevant Select Committee—that does not happen often.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is another side to the European coin? The European Union has already contributed 250 million euros to Kosovo. Does my hon. Friend agree that, in light of that contribution for humanitarian purposes, we now require a long-term commitment on the part of the European Union and the United Nations of the sort that was employed positively in northern Iraq?
    Mr. Foulkes: My right hon. Friend is right to say that there is another side to the European coin. European Union money was effective in South Africa, where it helped to end apartheid, and in Kosovo, as he said. We want to make sure that the commitments made by the European Commission are fulfilled more quickly and effectively and help poor people more than they do at present.
    Dr. Jenny Tonge: Does the Minister agree that the humanitarian crisis in Kosovo has highlighted the need for co-ordination at international level and that the European Union is the ideal vehicle for that? Will he tell the House how the EU is co-ordinating its aid to Kosovo and what effect it is having on the EU's long-term aid budget? Does he accept the need for more long-term development aid for Albania, Macedonia and Montenegro to prevent hostility arising from the influx of refugees?
    Mr. Foulkes: There is a question further down the Order Paper which is specifically about assistance in Kosovo, and my right hon. Friend will answer that if we get to it. A number of European Union countries are active in Kosovo, Albania and Macedonia, but countries outwith the EU are also involved there, and it would not be proper for the EU to try to co-ordinate the efforts of countries such as the United States and non-EU European countries. That is why the UNHCR, which is particularly concerned with the plight of refugees, takes the lead in helping Kosovo refugees, and it is right that it should do so.
    Mr. Tony Worthington: Does my hon. Friend agree that the present priority is to use the opportunity of the crisis in the European Commission to appoint as Commissioners people who regard their duty as steering development assistance to the poorest countries of the world and putting in place structures that are sensible rather than bureaucratic?
    Mr. Foulkes: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Some of the most severe criticisms of maladministration and inefficiency in the European Commission relate to money spent in developing countries, which should have helped
    214
    the poorest people of the world but was spent ineffectively. The Commission's assistance to developing countries ought to be the responsibility of a single Commissioner, and we shall strongly press for that.
    Mr. Gary Streeter: May I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Secretary of State for her personal intervention in getting many Kosovo Albanians moved to proper refugee camps over the Easter weekend? I welcome the EU General Council's announcement on 8 April of £100 million of direct assistance for the refugees and £68 million of support for the people of Albania, Macedonia and Montenegro. Does the Minister agree, however, that the tragic humanitarian crisis on our doorstep places a huge responsibility on EU aid institutions to rise to the challenge and demonstrate once and for all, for the sake of the suffering people in the Balkans, that they can deliver aid to the right people, on time, as effectively as the UK does bilaterally?
    Mr. Foulkes: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend deserves his congratulations and those of the House for the work that she did on her visit in the Easter holiday, and it is a tribute to the hon. Gentleman that he has made those comments. My right hon. Friend is now active in ensuring that the long-term strategy is worked out and that the European Union's response is as co-ordinated and effective as possible. The European Union faces a challenge in playing its part in the international humanitarian effort. It is our determination, and particularly that of the Secretary of State, to make sure that the EU is as effective as possible.
    Mr. Streeter: Will the Minister undertake to keep a close eye on the EU's actions? In the past, aid has sometimes been pledged but not received on the ground. Will he make sure that the cash that has been pledged for the people of Kosovo is received by the aid agencies on time and in the right place?
    Mr. Foulkes: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend and I and our excellent officials—who have been doing terrific work, day and night, on the Kosovo crisis, and will continue to do so—will ensure that all the money, not only that of the European Union, is spent effectively. There is a question on Kosovo further down the Order Paper, and it is a pity that we shall not have time to answer it.
    Madam Speaker: I was looking forward to reaching that question, but we have made slow progress today.

    Debt Relief
    Dr. Doug Naysmith: If she will emphasise the link between debt relief and poverty eradication at the spring meetings of the World bank and the IMF. [79108]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): Yes, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I have emphasised continually that the purpose of debt relief should be to increase resources for poverty reduction programmes, not to enable countries to take on new contracts, which is sometimes what it is designed to do. We shall be stressing the central

    215
    importance of poverty reduction in the discussions on debt relief at the spring meetings of the World bank and IMF in a few weeks' time, and are pressing for this linkage to be strengthened as part of the outcome of the current review of the heavily indebted poor countries initiative.
    Dr. Naysmith: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does she agree that much greater international collaboration is required if these problems are to be solved? Has she been having discussions with other Governments on that?
    Clare Short: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Sometimes, people suppose that the debt that we are talking about is commercial debt, but it is overwhelmingly debt to the World bank, the IMF and export credit departments; and we shall make progress only if we can get international agreement. Since the change of Government, the German Government have adopted a stance supporting deeper and stronger debt relief. We are therefore very hopeful that we shall get agreement, at the forthcoming spring meetings of the World bank and IMF and then of the G8 in Cologne, to get multilateral support for wider and deeper debt relief.
    Mr. William Cash: Will the Secretary of State note that the all-party committee for the reduction of third-world debt under the aegis of Jubilee 2000 is extremely grateful for the personal efforts that she has made with respect to the relief of debt in the third world? Will she note that, at 4 o'clock this afternoon, in the Jubilee Room, there will be a meeting, attended by the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth together with the wife of President Museveni, for the purpose of continuing that campaign? Will she also note that an initiative is being taken, the object of which is to obtain the support of all parliamentarians throughout the world to apply increasing pressure in support of the campaign for the reduction of third world debt, which I know that the right hon. Lady is doing a great deal to achieve? We wish her every success in what she is seeking to achieve, and congratulate her on the efforts that she has been making.
    Clare Short: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Would he consider inviting me to the all-party group?
    Mr. Cash: I have!
    Clare Short: At the review of the heavily indebted poor countries initiative, we are pushing for a much stronger link between debt relief and poverty reduction. That is very important. We want debt relief, but we want it to benefit Governments who will adopt policies that really benefit the poor; and at the time of decision the support of the hon. Gentleman's group might be very helpful.
    Ms Julia Drown: Given the World bank's report last week that showed that for every pound given in grant to developing countries in 1998, £13 was paid back in debt relief, and that that compares with £9 in 1996, does my right hon. Friend agree that much more needs to be done to try to relieve the unsustainable debt of some of the poorest countries in this world which are
    216
    committed to tackling poverty; and does she consider that that should include considering completely writing off the debt of some of those countries?
    Clare Short: I very much agree with my hon. Friend that there should be more debt relief for the poorest countries that have unsustainable debt and have adopted policies to benefit the poor. Some of the figures that claim that those countries are paying out more on debt than they are receiving in aid are exaggerated, but that is not the main point. The point is to back the reformers and enable them to lift up their poor and create examples of successful development. I strongly support my hon. Friend in that.
    Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: I agree with what the Secretary of State has just said, and I know that she would agree that debt relief could undoubtedly be used more effectively as a tool of international development. If a heavily indebted country is prepared to spend effectively on poverty eradication, as opposed to using debt relief to purchase arms and support war; and if, to substantiate that, it is prepared to be independently audited, surely that could be rewarded with more positively phased debt relief.
    Would the Secretary of State support the establishment of a new international development auditor, to carry out impartial and rigorous monitoring of budgets, and would she promote that concept at the World bank and IMF meetings later this month?
    Clare Short: I completely agree with the hon. Lady's objectives, but we already have the type of auditor that she is looking for—it is called the IMF. In addition, the heavily indebted poor countries initiative is linked to a certain absolute requirement, and all these countries are instituting enhanced structural adjustment programmes with the IMF and have to comply with them. We are trying to get those programmes focused more specifically on poverty.
    So the hon. Lady's argument is right, but in fact the machinery is already in place. We do not need a new structure. We need to focus the structure that we have much more sharply on the link with poverty.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    [79133] Mr. Peter Luff: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 14 April.
    The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. John Prescott): I have been asked to reply.
    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is in Brussels with his European colleagues, meeting the Secretary-General of the United Nations to discuss the situation in Kosovo. I am sure that the whole House wishes the European Union leaders well in their discussions.
    Mr. Luff: Why did the Prime Minister tell the House yesterday that Serbian brutality in Kosovo had been

    217
    planned well in advance? Three weeks ago, both the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for International Development were saying that no one could have anticipated the Serbian reaction to the NATO bombing campaign, and, incredibly, that to have provided humanitarian assistance in advance would have made us complicit in Milosevic's campaign.
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I do not think that there is any doubt that the public, who have been watching their televisions, accept that such events have been happening, even during the discussions in Paris, but no one envisaged their scale. The hon. Gentleman should be well aware of that, and should join us in condemning those actions.
    Mr. David Chaytor: Does not one of the most worrying consequences of the conflict in the former Yugoslavia relate to the implications for the security of nuclear materials there? Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that dialogue with the Russian Government relating to the security of their nuclear installations will continue, and that, if necessary, they will be given assistance to prevent the development of a supply chain of illegal nuclear materials from Russia to Serbia?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: Hon. Members have expressed concern about that on a number of occasions in the House. It also featured in the most recent discussions between the Foreign Secretary and his Russian counterpart.
    Mr. Peter Lilley: May I reiterate the Conservative party's support for the action in which our armed forces are engaged in the Balkans? May I also ask whether, in the light of the deployment of extra troops that the Prime Minister has announced over the past 24 hours—meaning that more than 85 per cent. of the Army is now committed to, or earmarked for, specific operations—the Government share our concern about the possibility that our Army will become overstretched?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I am advised that the Chief of the Defence Staff is entirely satisfied with the situation. The commitment is not as high as 85 per cent.; I believe that it is as low as 43 per cent. In any event, we should take the advice of the Chief of the Defence Staff, and in this context we fully accept what he has to say.
    Mr. Lilley: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his answer, but there is real cause for concern. The Chief of the Defence Staff told the Select Committee on Defence last year:
    "I do not think we could sustain two medium level operations"—
    which he defined as being like the one already taking place in Bosnia—
    "for longer than six months."
    In view of our commitments in Northern Ireland, Iraq and Bosnia, and in view of the growth and uncertain duration of our commitment in Kosovo, should we not reconsider the strategic defence review?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I do not honestly think that what the right hon. Gentleman has said shows any contradiction between what the Chief of the Defence Staff told us today and what he was saying six months ago.
    218
    He has given us his judgment, which is that our forces are competent to do what they have been asked to do. I think that the right hon. Gentleman should endorse that judgment, rather than casting doubt on it.
    Mr. Lilley: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's reluctance to give an immediate answer to the question I asked about the strategic defence review, but there is a serious issue here, and Conservative Members hope that he and his colleagues will consider it seriously. Given that parts of the Territorial Army are already being deployed in the Balkans, will the right hon. Gentleman give immediate consideration to halting the Government's cuts in the TA?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has made it clear that restructuring in line with the strategic defence review is under way. I must also tell the right hon. Gentleman that the language he uses—as on the last occasion, involving Northern Ireland—does not help our service men to carry out their obligations.
    Mr. Ian Davidson: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the recent decision by the Kvaerner group to pull out of shipbuilding world wide, and the effect that that is likely to have on the Kvaerner Govan yard? Will he join me in welcoming the imaginative steps that have been taken so far by the Scottish Office? Will he undertake that the Government will do all they can to preserve commercial shipbuilding in Clydeside, especially by doing everything possible to ensure that Kvaerner gets the roll on/roll off ferries order from the Ministry of Defence; and that, where possible, work placed elsewhere by the MOD will be transferred to that yard to keep all those people in employment?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I fully accept what my hon. Friend said. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has made it clear that he will do everything possible to ensure that industrial and shipping activity can be retained in Scotland. The appointment of Gavin Laird to consider the future of the premises and find a possible buyer is a quick and proper action that we can all support.
    Mr. A. J. Beith: Will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that average school class sizes are now larger than they were when Labour took office?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I can confirm that we are on target for reducing class sizes, as we promised.
    Mr. Beith: With respect, that is not the same question. In any event, when the right hon. Gentleman made that pledge to five to seven-year-olds, did he envisage that class sizes might gradually be reduced for them, while they increased for the rest of the school system—for eight to 11-year-olds, secondary schools and nursery schools? The average class size is larger in each of those categories, as it is overall. Does the right hon. Gentleman consider it acceptable to cut class sizes for a quarter of our children by raising them for three quarters? Would it be a little off-message to admit that that is not good enough?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman asked whether we were on target for reducing

    219
    class sizes—[Interruption.] That is the answer that he is going to get, anyway. From September this year, we expect that fewer than 200,000 infants will be in large classes, compared with the figure of almost half a million which we inherited. That is an example of a good record, and of a party and a Government carrying out their promises.
    On a more personal note, I welcome the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has had the opportunity to ask a question today, as we deputy leaders do not often get such an opportunity. That opportunity was given by his party leader, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), to the only man who is not challenging for leadership of the Liberal Democrat party.
    Mr. Vernon Coaker: Over the weekend, I was in Macedonia to see the work that UNICEF is doing there. The vast majority, if not all, of the Kosovo Albanians to whom I spoke support the action of NATO and of the British Government. We should be proud of what our troops are achieving there. Will my right hon. Friend reaffirm the commitment that the Prime Minister gave that those guilty of war crimes in Kosovo will be prosecuted if we can bring them to justice? I was told a horrific tale of 15 people having been massacred, five from one family, by hooded Serb policemen. Such people should be brought to justice.
    The Deputy Prime Minister: Those are matters of serious concern. We have heard horrific reports from the camps about the systematic rape of Kosovo Albanian women. That is the same appalling practice as the Bosnian Serbs used as a weapon of war against the Muslims in Bosnia. It is also reported that General Mladic, who was indicted for war crimes in Bosnia in 1995, is commanding a gang of thugs in Kosovo, and that the war criminal Arcan is recruiting volunteers for his paramilitary units from prisons in Serbia. That shows the sort of people on whom the Serbian leadership is relying to carry out its vicious ethnic cleansing.
    Let us be clear—the Prime Minister has made it clear—that anyone who has committed war crimes and who is indicted by the tribunal as criminals, shall be pursued exactly as we are pursuing those who committed such crimes in Bosnia.
    [79134] Mr. Andrew Robathan: We all condemn the ghastly crimes that the Deputy Prime Minister has mentioned, but perhaps he remembers telling the House that
    "The demands are reasonable: they are an autonomous Kosovo within Serbia and an international military force to underpin the settlement."—[Official Report, 24 March 1999; Vol. 328, c. 484.]
    Are those still NATO demands? He mentioned the armed forces a moment ago. Is he aware of the concerns being expressed to me and to others by former colleagues in the armed forces about the shifting and confused military and political objectives?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I think that the House tires of hearing hon. Members offer support and then make statements that undermine the clear aims that have been set out by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I confirm yet again, as my right hon. Friend made clear to the House yesterday, that those are the aims that we had at the beginning and they continue to be our aims.
    Mr. Hilton Dawson: Will my right hon. Friend commend the efforts being made in
    220
    Lancaster by business and the higher education community to build business development on the superb research skills of a world-class university, and to make Lancaster not only the geographical and historical heart of the north-west, but the economic heart of a vibrant north-west region—and, hopefully, of a north-west regional government in the future?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I very much accept what my hon. Friend has said. With our extra £20 billion for education and the new development agencies that we have just launched in the regions, Government policy will make a considerable difference, helping to improve the prosperity of the region and to achieve the objectives that he has so eloquently spelled out.
    [791351 Mr. William Thompson: Has the Deputy Prime Minister the grace to acknowledge that those of us who have been opposed to the Belfast agreement have been confirmed in our consistent belief that paramilitary organisations are not going to decommission their arms? The remarks yesterday confirmed that. Will he acknowledge that we have been right? Will he state that as long as paramilitary organisations maintain that attitude, they cannot sit in a democratic Executive and govern?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I recall visiting Omagh, which is in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, after the terrible tragedy of the bombing. I well understand and accept the deep feeling that he had about the agreement at that time, but I believe that it is necessary to find agreement in Northern Ireland, and the great majority of the people want that. It is not helpful at this stage to cast doubt on whether we will achieve an agreement. The people of Northern Ireland desperately want an end to the spectre of violence that has plagued them for so long. The Good Friday agreement is the only way to achieve that and it is vital that the parties work constructively this week to find an agreed way forward. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has made clear, we can all defend our corners and say, "I told you so", but that has dominated the language and debate in Ireland for far too long.
    Gillian Merrons are right to be concerned that Tory-controlled Lincolnshire county council is failing to pass on in full the £14 million of extra resources for education made available by the Government to enable children and schools to flourish, not flounder, in Lincolnshire?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I fully accept what my hon. Friend says. Lincolnshire is not the only authority that professes to want—[Interruption.] It is not the only Tory authority either. Any authority that does not pass on the extra resources that the House intended for the improvement of education in its area should be condemned. We made those resources available to improve education and we want them to be used for that. We want those aims to be achieved by councils of whatever political colour and we shall call on them to do so.
    [79137] Sir Michael Spicer: In view of the firm commitments given to the Select

    221
    Committee on the Treasury by the Chancellor and the Economic Secretary, will the Deputy Prime Minister give an absolute guarantee that the withholding tax will not be introduced in this country?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: As Secretary of State for the Environment, I constantly have to deal with the disastrous poll tax. The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that we have given local authorities the most generous settlement that they have ever received—
    Hon. Members: More, more.
    Madam Speaker: Order.
    [79138] Mr. Michael Connarty: Is my right hon. Friend—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. We will have a little order.
    Mr. Connarty: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the successful visit by the waterways Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), to the £78 million millennium canal link project in central Scotland? He visited it with the Minister responsible for transport in the Scottish Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald). Will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that United Kingdom Ministers will continue to work in co-operation with the Scottish Parliament in areas of joint interest? Will he underline the message that Scotland and the UK are stronger together, and that the Government will do everything in their power to resist the expensive and threatening divorce that is put forward by the Scottish National party as its policy for Scotland's future?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: We are keen to strengthen the role of waterways as one good example of partnership. Since we came in, we have increased resources by £8 million, a 17 per cent. increase, and changed the rules so that public and private partnerships can play a greater part in transferring freight to the waterways. In those circumstances, we emphasise the role of partnership, not separation, both with central Government and Scotland, as well as within Scotland between the authorities and private authorities, to improve the waterways and to add to the prosperity of Scotland—in the name of partnership, not separatism.
    Mr. Peter Lilley: May I ask the Deputy Prime Minister about a tax with which he may be familiar? The last time we discussed the crisis in the road haulage industry, he refused to contemplate any changes in the duty rate set in the Budget. Can he confirm that he is now considering the Conservative proposal to reopen the Budget by charging foreign lorry drivers who use British roads, and using the revenue so raised to cut vehicle excise duties?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: We have made it clear that we are not reopening any of the proposals that were made in the Budget. We think that the proposals affecting the road haulage industry have been confirmed by the latest reports that show that costs are lower for our
    222
    industry than for many of its competitors—[Interruption.]> Many independent reports have shown that to be so and I do not see that they are being challenged in any way.
    Nevertheless, we continue to discuss with the road haulage industry any issues that it wishes to discuss about future development of policy. That is right. That is what we are doing. We think that that is a proper policy.
    Mr. Lilley: The right hon. Gentleman does not seem to be aware that his Department—indeed, his junior Minister, the Minister of Transport—has specifically asked to discuss the Conservative proposal with the road haulage industry. Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that the only purpose of introducing a Brit disc tax on foreign lorry drivers who use British roads is to be able to reduce the amount of vehicle excise duty charged in the Budget? Does he not realise that action is needed and that it is needed now—not next year, but now?
    Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that a number of substantial firms—such as T. Brady, which has 78 lorries—have just announced that they are going into liquidation, with a terrible loss of jobs? Will he introduce a Brit disc and a corresponding reduction in vehicle excise duty in the Finance Bill that is now going through Parliament?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: No, we will not do that because the whole picture has to be taken into account and I have given the right hon. Gentleman one indication of that. It is a bit much to hear such comments from a Treasury Minister of six years, whose Government developed a policy of boom and bust in the economy and put 5,000 road transport haulier companies out of business. Now he has the audacity to talk to us about reducing a fuel tax that they introduced.
    Mr. Lilley: Is not the reason that the right hon. Gentleman has to resort to bluster the fact that the Treasury has landed him in this mess? The Economic Secretary admitted that she made no assessment of the impact on the road haulage industry of the difference between road taxes here and on the continent. Is not the Government's road tax policy, begun in ignorance and continued through arrogance, now in confusion, leaving the industry in deep crisis?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I do not think that there is any doubt about the information that is available on the difference between costs incurred by British and European companies. The figures are produced by a company called KPMG. I assume that even the right hon. Gentleman will accept the authenticity of that company. KPMG has examined haulage companies and has made it clear that typical business costs are £600,000 higher in the Netherlands and £820,000 higher in Belgium. My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary has made that point time and again. It is somewhat strange to hear the right hon. Gentleman advocating a common European tax when most of the time the Opposition are against European tax. In view of his comments about French lorry drivers, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman should condemn the action by hauliers and offer us an apology. It is time that the Opposition apologised for their past mistakes. Would it not be better for them to apologise than simply to try to rewrite history, as they do time and again? That is hypocrisy.

    New National Forest
    [79139] Mr. David Taylor: When he next expects to visit the new national forest.
    The Deputy Prime Minister rose—
    Hon. Members: Come on.
    The Deputy Prime Minister: There are different ways of doing it at different times; it is the way I tell them. Just hang on. The answer is: my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has no immediate plans to do so.
    Mr. Taylor: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that the first new national forest for several centuries, covering 200 square miles and several parliamentary constituencies, has been an astonishing success, but for it to be genuinely environmentally sustainable, passenger rail services need to be returned to the national forest line between Leicester and Burton? Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the integrated transport strategy was designed to encourage just such projects? When he visits the area, will he reassure the 200,000 people who live there that the Government cavalry can ride to the rescue of the scheme, which is rapidly becoming becalmed in a quagmire created by Tory privatisation?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: May I apologise for causing some confusion at the beginning of the question? I thought that you said that it was Question 7, Madam Speaker; now I understand that it is Question 6.
    Madam Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is in perfect order. It is Question 7.
    The Deputy Prime Minister: There was a change to or the removal of a question, so I thought this was Question 6. I apologise to you, Madam Speaker, and to the House.
    My hon. Friend asked how we could improve the railway service in the area. Without doubt, we want improvements in the railways and in access to the wonderful countryside. Rail routes that have been discontinued or are not properly used are being reviewed by the Strategic Rail Authority, which started business on 1 April. We believe that it will improve access to the industry and to those beautiful areas—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. If the House would come to order and hon. Members would read their Order Papers, they would know which question was being answered—[Interruption.] No; hon. Members should read the Order Paper. This is a substantive question.

    Engagements
    [79140] Mr. Norman Baker (Lewes): Does the Deputy Prime Minister remember telling the Labour party conference last September that
    "the performance of our privatised railway is by common consent a disgrace, with service reductions, failing performance and increased fares"?
    224
    Can he explain why the Department of Trade and Industry has published a report recently called "Releasing the Power of Rail", which boasts that
    "Britain's railways have experienced a revolution in thinking as well as massive new investment. There is new energy and enthusiasm in the industry. The customer is king"?
    What explains this miraculous transformation from base metal to gold? Was he right or has he now been shunted into the sidings by his colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The reference in the Department of Trade and Industry report was to the engineering excellence available in the United Kingdom. The problem with privatisation in the United Kingdom is that we have not had or achieved that type of modern investment, and that, by common consent, privatisation has not improved the railway system. The appointment of the Strategic Rail Authority, a new franchising director and a new Rail Regulator will make a difference. It is a spring clean. I intend to make a change, and that change will come.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: On the subject of withholding money, has my right hon. Friend seen this morning's newspapers? The Daily Express—no less—has informed us that, in the run-up to the general election, the Tory party took £18,000 from a firm that was close to Milosevic. None of them have denied it. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that money should be handed over to the Secretary of State for International Development, so that she can take the money to the refugees?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I am sure that that point has been heard. We shall see whether the Tories respond to it in the same spirit.
    Q9. [79141] Mrs. Eleanor Laing: A few moments ago, the Deputy Prime Minister failed to answer the question asked, very reasonably, by the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson). If I ask a more simple question, perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister will answer it. In view of the refusal of paramilitary organisations in Ireland to give up their weapons, will the Deputy Prime Minister now agree with what Opposition Members have been saying for many months—that there should be no more releases of terrorist prisoners until decommissioning starts and terrorism stops? Does he agree or not?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: It is understood in the House that there is bipartisan agreement on support for the Good Friday agreement—which involved release of prisoners. The agreement has been endorsed by the House, and it has certainly been endorsed in Northern Ireland. All of us should use the type of language that encourages people to finalise the Good Friday agreement, rather than to ask such questions. If that is the type of advice that the hon. Lady is giving, it is only as good as the advice that she gave as the special adviser on railway privatisation.
    [79142] Mr. Clive Soley: Is it not time to put on record what my right hon. Friend will remember well—that, during our years in opposition, we gave support to the Conservative party in government, particularly on Northern Ireland, and particularly when the United Kingdom was at war? [Interruption.] We did not attempt to seek narrow party advantage, as we have heard today. [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. I will have a little silence on the Opposition Benches, particularly on the Front Bench.
    Mr. Soley: On issues such as Northern Ireland and Kosovo, support should stay solid on both sides of the House.
    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right—and I do believe that support is solid on both sides of the House. However, some individual voices express certain views. I appeal to them to bear it in mind that words spoken in the Chamber can have an effect that does not help the process of peace,
    226
    whether it is in Kosovo or Northern Ireland. Good language, sane language and common sense are far better as the voice of this House.
    Mr. David Atkinson: Will the Deputy Prime Minister tell my constituents in Bournemouth why their council tax remained substantially the same under the previous Conservative Government, but has risen by 20 per cent. under this Government?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The reality of the agreement on council tax increases, on average—[HON. MEMBERS: "In Bournemouth."] I shall deal with Bournemouth in a second. The average council tax increase was 6.8 per cent. On average, across the country, Tory councils had higher increases, at 7.6 per cent., and Labour councils had lower ones, at 6.1 per cent. We are producing a better-value service that has been recognised in the United Kingdom. In the elections in 1995, we returned a record number of councillors and councils. Now, Tory councils are responsible for and in control of only 5 per cent. of councils, including Bournemouth. The people gave their verdict on the Tory councils, and they rejected them.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Dr. Liam Fox: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You may have seen newspaper reports today that following the defeat of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill in the House of Lords last night, the Government are claiming that they will now use the Parliament Acts to bring the Bill back for a third time. If that is done in a year's time, a change will be sought to the law in Scotland in an area which will by then be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Has the Secretary of State for Scotland made any attempt to make a statement in this House to clarify under what legislation the Government intend to implement such proposals, which undermine their own policy of devolution?
Madam Speaker: I am not aware of any statement that is about to be made in the House. The Government have not made their intentions known to me at this stage.
Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I understand that one of the Government's key policies is to get youth unemployment down, and I know that all hon. Members on both sides of the House want to see the statistics on youth unemployment. Apparently, the Office for National Statistics has just announced that the Government have asked it not to keep those statistics any more, so we will not be able to see whether the new deal is working or not.
Madam Speaker: Order. What is the point of order for me?
Mr. Bruce: Have you had a request for a statement on this matter, Madam Speaker?
Madam Speaker: No. If there was to be a statement, we would all know about it because it would be on the Annunciator.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In answering questions, the Deputy Prime Minister urged us all to rally behind the Government. Could you rule that this House—of all places—must be a place where people are allowed to express reservations about Government policy in good faith?
Madam Speaker: It is not for me to indicate what Ministers or Back Benchers should say in this House. We are all free to express our opinions. The hon. Gentleman, as a Back Bencher, is entitled to his point of view just as much as much as any Front Bencher.

Cancer Care
3.32 pm
Mr. Paul Marsden: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about cancer services in the United Kingdom; to make provision for monitoring and improving the quality of cancer treatment and care provided by the National Health Service; to require the Secretary of State to undertake a new review and report on cancer services in the United Kingdom; and to provide for making such information available to the general public.
Cancer has been called the greatest health care challenge of the 21st century. Britain can boast some of the finest cancer treatment centres in the world, but the disease still affects one in three people. That means that about 440 sufferers die every single day, with an annual total of 160,000 deaths.
In Britain, we have one of the worst cancer mortality rates in the world; worse than Germany, Italy, Switzerland, France, the Netherlands, the United States, Spain and Japan. It is a growing problem. People are living longer—which is to be well received—but that presents greater problems, as people are then susceptible to cancer in old age. We have improved treatments that improve survival rates, but we have specific increases in lung and skin cancers.
The Calman-Hine report has said that provision is a cancer lottery, especially in rural areas. The Government clearly see the fight against cancer as a priority, and I welcome that. Following the Calman-Hine report's recommendation that services should be made more patient-centred, and dovetailed together, we have seen various papers, including "Our Healthier Nation" and "The New NHS", which make cancer a priority. There is a new two-week deadline to see a consultant for all cancer patients. The National Cancer Forum has recently been established.
I welcome the announcement only last month by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health of £150 million of new national lottery money, which will result in better education of the public, new cancer screening, new treatments and improved technology.
The Bill is backed by the main cancer charities, and especially Macmillan Cancer Relief, which is devoted to caring for people with cancer. It provides about 1,700 nurses nationwide and has invested about £70 million in building projects to provide the tender loving care that is needed by cancer patients and their families. I want to express my gratitude to Macmillan for its support and advice on the Bill and to other cancer charities and organisations such as the Cancer Research Campaign, the British Association of Cancer United Patients, Marie Curie, Breakthrough Breast Cancer, Sargent, the Royal Marsden hospital and the Institute of Cancer Research.
I was astonished to find that, at present, there is no central register or directory of cancer care services. The information is fragmented by type of cancer or by region or is simply non-existent, especially for the rarer cancers. From speaking to patients, carers, nurses, doctors, consultants and researchers I believe that there is overwhelming support for such a directory.
The Bill would require the Secretary of State for Health regularly to review cancer services and to produce a guide to identify the type of cancer care provision; areas of

229
greatest need; the range of treatment; information for patients on the different strains of the disease; performance statistics for cancer care centres, in particular, the number of patients treated; the facilities available; and the survival rates—and to place it on an internet website and disseminate it through NHS Direct so that it is widely available. The directory would need to be maintained, reviewed and evaluated.
The directory would allow patients access to current information on the cancer that affects them, the specific details of the treatment that they can expect to receive, the quality of the cancer care at their local or referred centre and contact information for charities and support groups. For the primary care groups to which we can look forward, it would give information on availability and extent of treatment locally and nationally, on the results of on-going trials, on new technology and on points of contact. It could be used by many organisations worldwide.
I salute the courage of all cancer sufferers and their families. Day in, day out they battle under enormous mental and physical strains. They have to take the good and the bad news from doctors and battle through sickness, tiredness, pain and fear. They dread the surgery, the chemotherapy and the radiotherapy that can cure them.
I know the damage that can be done by cancer. My father, Tom Marsden, died of the disease 14 years ago. I have also seen it at first hand in the Shropshire and Mid-Wales hospice, which I have visited regularly and on behalf of which I hope to complete the Flora London marathon on Sunday. I sincerely look forward to other hon. Members being present, in mind if not in body.
We must celebrate the courage of those affected by cancer and remember that survival rates are 50 to 60 per cent. on average, and much higher for specific types of cancer. I have seen the professionals in the front line at the Royal Shrewsbury hospital. In particular, I thank Dr. Rajiv Agrawal and Tim Cooper, the manager of the radiotherapy unit. They have given unstinting support, advice and help in the preparation of the Bill and they and their team of nurses are dedicated professionals helping and caring for cancer sufferers every day.
We should support the medical professionals through more funding for research and better information in the effort to find new cures for cancer. The Bill would go a small way towards helping everybody—patients, carers and medical professionals—and I urge the House to support it.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Paul Marsden, Dr. Evan Harris, Miss Julie Kirkbride, Mrs. Helen Brinton, Mr. Kevin Barron and Dr. Doug Naysmith.

Cancer Care
  CANCER CARE
  Mr. Paul Marsden accordingly presented a Bill to make provision about cancer services in the United Kingdom; to make provision for monitoring and improving the quality of cancer treatment and care provided by the National Health Service; to require the Secretary of State to undertake a new review and report on cancer services in the United Kingdom; and to provide for making such information available to the general public: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 30 April, and to be printed [Bill 82].
Orders of the Day

  Access to Justice Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. I have had to impose a 15-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches between 7 pm and 9 pm.
  3.40 pm
  The Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Access to Justice Bill is the most important legal reform of the past 50 years. It is radical and innovative. It is a significant step in restructuring our legal services better to protect the rights of our citizens. It will focus legal services on people's real needs. It presents a considerable opportunity and a considerable challenge to all who work in the law.
  Few people who have been through our justice system would argue that it does not need fundamental reform. It is slow, expensive and unpredictable. We are determined to deliver a modern justice system that meets the needs of all our citizens in the modern era. The public demand, and we must deliver, a justice system in which they have the utmost confidence. We will not be diverted from that task by reactionary elements in the legal professions. The legal system is not an end in itself; it is for and about the protection of people and of society. It protects our basic rights. Our legal services must serve the users and society generally, rather than the needs of those operating the system.
  The one attempt at reform by the previous Government, the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, was a half-hearted effort which, ultimately, failed to deliver the changes needed to make the legal world serve the needs of its clients and society. Our intention with the present Bill is to go much further—to reorient legal services away from the interests of lawyers towards the needs of customers and the wider public. That is the central ambition of our reforms and the central aim of this modernisation.
  Before dealing in detail with the Bill's provisions, the House will want to examine carefully the content of the Opposition's reasoned amendment. I hesitate to describe the amendment as "reasoned" because, despite its length, it gives little insight into what—if anything—the Conservatives really think about these proposals. They seem to be against them, no doubt for cynical and opportunist reasons, but what do they actually believe in?
  Can the Conservatives, who presided over a 20 per cent. cut in eligibility for legal aid while they were in office, and who in 1993 cut more than 25 per cent. of the population out of the green form scheme, really claim now to be the guardians of access to justice? Can members of a party whose Government introduced conditional fees allowing 100 per cent. uplifts now complain four years after the event that that was wrong in principle as it supposedly increases the cost of litigation?
  Are the Conservatives against the concept of the Legal Services Commission in principle? Are they against the criminal defence service? Does their concern about

  231
  imposing statutory restrictions on the Crown Prosecution Service mean that, not unsurprisingly, they are lining up with those reactionaries who want to maintain, or even extend, restrictive practices in the law?
  What is most worrying about the reasoned amendment, however, is that the official Opposition do not appear to have read the Bill very carefully. There is no suggestion in the Bill that there will be a system of wholly state-employed prosecutors or defenders. Moreover, the powers that the Bill grants to the Lord Chancellor to alter the rules of the legal professions, far from being unilateral, can be exercised only with the approval of Parliament. Are the Opposition really claiming that that is an insufficient safeguard?
  Let me now explain what the Bill actually does. It creates the community legal service which will be responsible for considering the need for civil and family legal services. It will build up a pattern of legal services to meet that need as far as resources will allow. It creates a criminal defence service which will replace criminal legal aid. Publicly funded criminal defence services will continue to be available in all cases where the interests of justice require it.
  The Bill makes the success fee in conditional fee arrangements and insurance premiums recoverable in costs; that will greatly extend the use of no win, no fee agreements, ensuring that the successful claimant is not punished by a reduction in damages.
  The Bill extends full rights of audience in principle to all lawyers, and sets up a system for regulating the legal profession with a dynamic for further change. It will ensure that civil appeals are heard at the right level and that they are dealt with in a way proportionate to their weight and complexity. It will change the organisation and management of magistrates courts so that they can better serve the public and help with our plans to make the criminal justice system more co-ordinated and speedy.
  Why are we introducing the Bill at this time? It is essential that the United Kingdom maintain an effective justice system. Our system of justice has many admirable features—in particular, the many lawyers who work, sometimes without payment, for the disadvantaged and on cases that do not always meet with popular approval.
  Access to justice is far from perfect, however. Services available from lawyers can be disproportionately expensive. Instead of predictable prices, those with potential legal cases are intimidated by the prospect of an open-ended bill drawn up after the event. That can discourage not only those with limited means, but the relatively well-off. The system is biased towards court-based solutions, even when alternatives to court may work better.
  We have a patchwork quilt provision of legal advice, which has been stitched together over time by solicitors and the funders and providers of advice in the voluntary sector, without any thread of co-ordination. Nor is the quality of legal services always as good as it might be. The volume of complaints that the Law Society's Office for the Supervision of Solicitors receives shows growing dissatisfaction with the services of some solicitors.
  Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: Does my hon. Friend believe that self-regulation is the reason for the failure of that office? Is there not a need for independent regulation?
  Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend is consistently assiduous in pursuing that point and I shall deal with it in more detail shortly.
  Between 1991–92 and 1997–98, expenditure on civil and family legal aid rose from £330 million to £634 million, an increase of 92 per cent. During the same period, gross domestic product rose by only 19 per cent. However, the number of people helped fell by 10 per cent. The taxpayer has been paying more for less. Expenditure has been more stable for the past couple of years, but the fact remains that legal aid spending is volatile and cannot be controlled with any certainty.
  Mr. John Swinney: Legal aid is a power devolved to the Scottish Parliament, and the Bill will pass through the House of Commons during the period in which the Scottish Parliament will assume its full legislative functions from 1 July. Do any provisions in the Bill impinge on the default powers being given to the Scottish Parliament, and will there be dialogue between here and there on any area of the Bill?
  Mr. Hoon: The answer to each of those questions is no.
  Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: Given the worrying statistic that fewer people were helped over the period that my hon. Friend mentioned, does he accept the Legal Aid Board's finding that a principal reason was the increase in the limits of small claims courts, which took a large number of people out of the ambit of legal aid?
  Mr. Hoon: That may well be the case, but the cost is rising at a time when the number of acts of assistance are falling. The taxpayer has been paying considerably more and getting considerably less. Expenditure in the financial year just ended was around £1.63 billion—£104 million or 7 per cent. more than in the previous year—which demonstrates the volatility of increases and the change possible from year to year in the present legal aid scheme.
  Furthermore, civil legal aid is very restricted. For the most part, only people qualified to claim benefits can use legal aid. Those who have slightly more disposable income, but who still have very modest resources, are effectively excluded.
  What are we doing to solve these problems? The Bill is only part of our plans. The White Paper laid before Parliament last December puts the Bill in a wider context, which includes the programme of reform to the civil courts that will come into effect on 26 April, and which will make the cost of cases more predictable and their progress more rapid.
  Today, I must concentrate on what the Bill will do to modernise legal services. The first part of the Bill will reform the legal aid scheme to provide the best possible services for people within the constraints of available resources, and by securing the best possible value for money. The Bill will establish the Legal Services Commission to operate the community legal service and the criminal defence service. The community legal service will subsume the existing programme of family and civil legal aid, but its objectives will be wider and more innovative.
  The most radical feature of the community legal service is that, for the first time, we will assess the need for legal and advice services and develop the provision of such

  233
  help in response to that need. In partnership with local funders of legal and advice services, and in particular with local authorities, the community legal service will draw up plans for the delivery of legal and advice services, taking account of identified needs and priorities.
  No Government can guarantee that all needs will or can always be met. That is certainly not the case with the existing legal aid system. But we intend for the first time to be in a position to base funding choices on real evidence.
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: Is not one of the effects of the scheme that the Minister is introducing the fact that, whereas under the old system the state disbursed to help people who did not have enough money to litigate, the state will now choose which forms of litigation it considers socially desirable and therefore worthy of support? Is that a desirable development in a free society?
  Mr. Hoon: That already happens under the existing scheme. The hon. Gentleman knows that some cases are within the scope of the existing system and some are outside it. If, as we hope to, we bring the overall cost of legal aid under control for the first time, we may also be able to think more carefully about the areas that have historically been excluded, and try to provide financial support. The precondition for that approach is to get the existing scheme under control, however. The previous Government consistently failed to do that, but it is our ambition to be successful.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am most interested in the Minister's reply to my hon. Friend's question. Is the Government's objective merely to contain or even to reduce the money that the taxpayer gives in legal aid, or is the Minister concerned to ensure that as many people as possible who need justice from our system but need to rely on legal aid to get it, receive help?
  Mr. Hoon: Our ambition is to control the cost of legal aid and to ensure that we can plan appropriate provision year on year to meet need. That means that we will carefully consider the range of people affected—the most vulnerable people in our society who have legal problems and need legal advice—so that we can direct scarce taxpayers' resources to meeting their needs. The present system does not achieve that, but we are determined that the Bill will right the wrong.
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Hoon: May I make a little more progress first? I shall give way in a few minutes.
  Mr. Hawkins: On this very point?
  Mr. Hoon: All right.
  Mr. Hawkins: Further to the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), will the Minister confirm the simple fact that in the last year for which figures are available, the number of people
  234
  helped by legal aid increased by 3.2 per cent. whereas legal aid spending increased by only 1.2 per cent? Does that not make my hon. Friend's point for him and undermine the Government's claim that the new scheme is intended to help people? It is not intended to help people; it is simply intended to save money.
  Mr. Hoon: On the contrary. The hon. Gentleman is not using the most up-to-date figures. That is understandable, because they are probably not available to him. The figures on which he is relying are for the year before last. I have already conceded that for a couple of years there was some slowdown in the rate of increase. However, our best information is that the level of increase for last year is about 7 per cent., which demonstrates the degree of volatility involved.
  Within the overall community legal service, the community legal service fund will replace the existing legal aid scheme for civil and family cases. This will secure the provision of publicly funded legal services on the basis of national, regional and local priorities. The Legal Services Commission will, in the light of those priorities, draw up a funding code, which will be approved by the Lord Chancellor and agreed by Parliament. That code will set out the detailed criteria and procedures for deciding whether to fund individual cases.
  This approach will be both tougher and more flexible than at present. The funding code will allow different criteria to apply to different kinds of cases and different types of help. We will ensure that help is channelled to the cases that most need support. That means that, where appropriate alternatives to public funding exist, we shall expect them to be used, to allow us to focus scarce public money where the need is greatest and where it can do most good.
  Accordingly, this Bill carries through the policy announced last July of requiring most personal injury claims to be taken using conditional fee agreements. Conditional fees are an important means of extending access to justice to the great majority of the population, who have effectively been denied access to the courts by the fear of lawyers' bills. Only the very rich, those with insurance and those poor enough to qualify for legal aid have any hope of achieving real access to justice.
  Mr. John Bercow: What does the Minister say to Mr. Phillip Sycamore, the president of the Law Society, who has said that the Government's proposals for conditional fee arrangements involve removing civil rights from large sections of the population and denying them access to justice? I was concerned to see the Minister, who is normally a polite soul, chuntering when I mentioned the president of the Law Society, who is an estimable person and deserves a proper response. As premiums, especially in relation to cases of medical negligence, can be onerous, is not the Minister concerned that people currently eligible for legal aid will find their cost beyond them?
  Mr. Hoon: The reason for my concern about the hon. Gentleman's comments is that Mr. Phillip Sycamore has not been president of the Law Society for some time. I accept that he was previously president. I do not accept that the system of conditional fees restricts access to justice. The overwhelming evidence of the correspondence that I receive from hon. Members on both

  235
  sides of the House is that people complain that they cannot get legal aid because they are just above the financial limit. Those people are denied access to justice, which can be secured through no win, no fee agreements which mean that lawyers take the risk and that people can safely rely on the quality of advice that they are given.
  The present problem with conditional fees is that they penalise the successful plaintiff by paying the lawyer's success fee out of the damages recovered, thus reducing the compensation. We propose instead to allow the claimant to recover the success fee. We will also make insurance premiums paid by a successful litigant in connection with specific proceedings recoverable by way of costs. That will make the use of conditional fee arrangements fairer and more effective for everyone and place the cost of having to take action in the courts squarely with the individual or organisation whose fault caused the litigation in the first place. For the client, the proposal will ensure that the full damages recovered will be retained, rather than a slice going to his or her lawyers. That is a significant step forward for the operation of conditional fees.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: The Minister mentioned the benefits of conditional fee agreements, which we introduced. We recognise, as he does, that they are of benefit, but they are of benefit as an add-on. The Bill will remove legal aid from poor people who have suffered personal injury unless they have cast-iron cases. Deserving but less than cast-iron cases will find it difficult to get lawyers. That criticism has been made by many experienced lawyers on both sides of the House and of the party divide. What has the Minister to say to it?
  Mr. Hoon: I am slightly surprised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman's opening observation, since the reasoned amendment is critical of the operation of conditional fees and his name has been appended to it; perhaps he, or whoever wrote it for him, did not check its precise contents. On those eligible for legal aid at present, I have every confidence that anyone with a good case will be able to find a lawyer willing to take it, either through their membership of a trade union or other organisation, through insurance or through lawyers being prepared to fund the up-front costs.
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews: Upon what research does my hon. Friend base that assertion? Where can we obtain it?
  Mr. Hoon: Conditional fees have operated entirely successfully for some four years. I receive a welter of correspondence from right hon. and hon. Members complaining about the legal aid system. To the best of my knowledge, the Department has received only one letter complaining about the operation of conditional fees. My hon. and learned Friend will be familiar with trade union schemes, which operate in a similar way to no win, no fee arrangements in the sense that union lawyers recover their costs and pay their staff out of the successful cases that they pursue. If they happen to take a case that is not successful, they bear the costs in the same way that lawyers operating conditional fees will bear the costs. Those schemes operate successfully for the benefit of members of trade unions.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: My hon. Friend qualified his example by talking of people with a good
  236
  case. That phrase is important, because many people who now get legal aid have a marginal case that needs to be tested and which they cannot hawk round lawyers to see whether it fits into their portfolio of risk. The problem is that the Bill will lead to cherry picking. Big firms will snaffle the good cases and the difficult cases of people who do not have the time, ability or perhaps the sense to find a lawyer to take them up, especially in places such as Grimsby, will not be followed up.
  Mr. Hoon: I do not accept that. The great majority of people who are not at present eligible for legal aid face exactly that situation, but they find lawyers who are willing to take their cases on a conditional fee basis. There is no reason why everyone should not have that support. The prize for that is the ability to channel scarce taxpayers' resources into those areas with a greater need. My hon. Friend knows that personal injury litigation operates successfully, and it will continue to do so, notwithstanding the fact that legal aid will not generally be available in most cases. In those circumstances, it will be possible for people to find lawyers willing to take their cases, and the benefit for the Government is that we will be able to release resources to other, more vulnerable people who have not received help from the taxpayer since the legal aid scheme was established.
  Mr. Grieve: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Hoon: No, because I must make some progress. The legal insurance market continues to develop and innovate. New insurance products specifically linked to conditional fees have come on to the market regularly since October 1997, when we announced our intention to expand the use of conditional fees. Only the other week a policy was launched by Royal Sun Alliance where the premium itself is paid at the end of the case, and only if the case is successful. That will be a significant addition to the policies that are available because it will give lawyers working under conditional fees insurance against losing fees if they are unsuccessful. The benefits for clients are obvious—as with their legal fees, the insurance premium will only have to be paid if the case is won. Thanks to our proposals, that premium will be paid for by the losing defendant.
  We nevertheless accept that there may be a limited range of worthwhile cases in which it may be difficult for people to find lawyers to act under a conditional fee. In some exceptional personal injury cases the costs of investigating the strength of the case to the point at which a solicitor can decide whether to offer a conditional fee agreement may be very high. Similarly, some cases may be very expensive and may reach a point where the risk is too great for most firms to carry. I am confident that, as solicitors adapt to working under conditional fees, and as they receive the benefit of the uplifts as well as their costs for concluded cases, they will be able to carry those costs and risks. However to ensure that we do not leave people unable to bring worthwhile cases, we have provided powers in the Bill for the Lord Chancellor to provide by direction that assistance in generally excluded categories of case may be given in prescribed circumstances. We expect in particular to use those powers to support personal injury cases with exceptionally high investigative or total costs.
  The criminal defence service will continue to provide assistance, advice and representation in all those criminal cases where the interests of justice require it. We also

  237
  expect, with the House's agreement, that the Legal Services Commission will itself employ lawyers to provide certain criminal defence services. It is not our intention to create a monolithic, wholly employed defence service. We foresee a mixed economy with both employed lawyers and lawyers in private practice, but the provisions to allow for direct employment to provide those services were removed in another place, largely at the urging of private sector lawyers. We will ask this House to reinstate them.
  Most services funded by the Legal Services Commission for both the community legal service and the criminal defence service will be secured through contracts. Contracts are a flexible means of buying services. The Legal Services Commission will use that flexibility to secure the best possible balance of access, quality and price. In due course, especially in areas where volumes are high, I would expect to see much greater use of prices fixed in advance, rather than costs calculated at the end of cases at hourly rates, but we will proceed cautiously and build on experience, so that providers have time to adapt to change.
  There is no evidence, as some have claimed, that lawyers will abandon the legal aid scheme rather than work under contracts. On the contrary, applications for franchises have flooded in over the past few months, and the Legal Aid Board now expects to grant at least 5,000 first-round contracts for family work and a roughly similar number of contracts for advice and assistance.
  As for the legal professions themselves, we intend to tackle unfair restrictive practices. We believe it right in principle that suitably qualified lawyers should enjoy full rights of audience and rights to conduct litigation. Previous attempts to extend rights of audience and rights to conduct litigation have been tortuous and have produced little of substance. A classic example is the proposal to extend the rights of employed solicitors. After six years of debate, consultation and advice—and yet more consultation, advice and debate—a very small package of additional rights was given to employed solicitors.
  Mr. Edward Gamier: The Minister appears to have passed rather quickly from part I of the Bill to part III—he is now discussing much later provisions. It must be an oversight, but the Minister appears not to have dealt with clause 1. What is the Government's view on that?
  Mr. Hoon: Clause 1 was introduced in another place, and hon. Members will wish to consider the matter in Committee. I anticipate that the Government will want to introduce amendments to replace clause 1—and no doubt the hon. and learned Gentleman and I will have fun discussing exactly what will replace it. As clause 1 was not introduced by the Government, it need not necessarily detain us at this stage.
  The Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee on Legal Education and Conduct—ACLEC—has been responsible for overseeing applications for extending the rights of audience. This Bill will abolish ACLEC and put in its place a new consultative panel with a simplified set of procedures. Although ACLEC has done some good work,
  238
  the system of which it is part has not succeeded to any great extent in furthering the objective set by Parliament of developing new or better ways of providing legal services with a wider choice of people providing them. The clause that would have allowed full rights of audience to be exercised by all suitably qualified lawyers—by those employed by the Government or other bodies, as much as by those in private practice—was removed in another place. I will ask the House to reinstate that clause.
  The Government will introduce an amendment that will enable banisters working in solicitors' offices to exercise rights of audience on behalf of the solicitors' clients. At present, this is not allowed under the Bar's rules. There is also a provision that will allow Parliament to change rights of audience or rights to conduct litigation that are unduly restrictive. We hope not to have to use this power, but it will provide a dynamic for change in the future.
  Other changes in the Bill deal with the administration and organisation of our courts. The existing system of civil appeals is convoluted, inconsistent, time-consuming and often expensive. The system is used to spin out cases in no one's interest. The Bill will reform the system and complement the existing programme of reforms in civil courts of first instance by applying the same underlying principle of proportionality.
  The Bill also makes several changes to the organisation and management of magistrates courts, which hear 97 per cent. of all criminal cases. The Government have already embarked on a comprehensive programme to rationalise and modernise the administration of those courts. The Bill will facilitate the development of a more coherent geographical structure for the criminal justice system and help improve the management and efficiency of magistrates courts.
  Ms Hazel Blears: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, despite the need to rationalise magistrates courts, he believes that access to justice should be delivered locally? If we are to involve magistrates courts in the partnership to tackle crime and disorder, it is crucial that justice is dispensed within the local area.
  Mr. Hoon: I accept that point entirely, and nothing in the Bill will prevent the local administration of justice.
  The Government intend to introduce several further amendments to the Bill. The first change concerns the handling of complaints against the legal professions—to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) referred at the outset. The Office for the Supervision of Solicitors, which is an integral part of the Law Society, is clearly failing to deal adequately with complaints. It was set up in 1996 to deal with complaints of inadequate professional service and of serious misconduct by solicitors. The office is the most recent attempt by the Law Society to get right its complaints systems. It replaced the Solicitors Complaints Bureau, but, like previous attempts, it has not delivered sustained improvement. There is a good deal of concern among the public and on all sides of the House.
  Mr. John Burnett: Information came to me that, last month alone, the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors had to close down 27 law firms. I do not know whether the Minister was aware of

  239
  that. Do the Government believe that the OSS has sufficient resources to cope with that work and the growth in complaints against solicitors?
  Mr. Hoon: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's point. If I explain the Government's intentions, I may satisfactorily answer his question. If not, I am sure that he will ask it again.
  I understand that the legal services ombudsman is likely to report that the OSS has failed to make the necessary progress in the areas highlighted in her last report. She concluded that the OSS needed to resolve complaints speedily; achieve greater credibility in the eyes of complainants, and be seen to provide effective redress where appropriate. The greatest immediate concern is the backlog of 9,000 complaints—a backlog that is increasing. Complaints are not allocated to a case officer for some six months.
  We shall therefore table amendments to ensure that the complaints systems of the Law Society and the other legal professions operate in the public interest. We are convinced that we need to extend statutory provision in that area as a matter of urgency.
  We propose to establish a new post with the responsibility for setting targets for complaints handling and making recommendations about complaints systems. It will have powers to ensure that legitimate expectations about complaints handling are met. However, we are aware of the efforts that the Law Society is making to put its house in order, so the new powers will be held by an entirely new office. That office might be held by the ombudsman, but no decision has yet been made.
  Mr. Bercow: Obviously, hon. Members will want to scrutinise in detail the Government's new proposals for the replacement of the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors. Does the Minister accept that many Conservative Members look forward with interest to those proposals and agree with him that the present arrangements are entirely unsatisfactory? I have testimony to that fact from the sad experience of Mr. and Mrs. Philip Stanton from Shabbington in my constituency. In seeking to pursue a claim against their former solicitors, they have had their retirement ruined and suffered extraordinary delay. They will certainly welcome a suggestion that the OSS should be replaced.
  Mr. Hoon: I would not want to be accused of misleading the House in any way, so I make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that we intend not to replace the OSS but to make it subject to stringent standards and safeguards in handling complaints. I hope that I have provided the reassurance that the hon. Gentleman's constituents clearly require.
  Mr. John Healey: Does my hon. Friend recognise that the move towards independent scrutiny and a statutory base for the handling of complaints against solicitors will be warmly welcomed by Labour Members as well as by Conservative Members? Our experience, like that of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), is that the OSS is slow and is not taken seriously enough by the profession.
  Mr. Hoon: I am aware of the concern about complaints handling felt by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  240
  As I have made clear to the OSS over the months, one of the most effective tests of whether it is dealing satisfactorily with complaints is the number of letters that are forwarded to me by Members of the House, and that number is causing the Government concern.
  The Government have every confidence in the ombudsman. Her office will continue to be needed and her powers will be strengthened. At present, when she considers a complaint referred to her after it has been dealt with by the relevant professional body, she has the power only to make non-binding recommendations about compensation which are sometimes ignored. In future, she will have the option of making binding determinations that will have to be paid by the lawyers in default.
  We are also prepared to grant the Law Society's request for additional powers. Those will, in particular, enable the Law Society to play its part in controlling unscrupulous immigration advisers. That was a commitment in our manifesto and is part of the Immigration and Asylum Bill which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has brought before the House.
  The Government intend also to introduce a modest measure to ensure that the full cost of administering the annual competition for Queen's Counsel is met by those applying and not, as at present, paid for by the taxpayer. Under current legislation, the Lord Chancellor's Department has no power to charge for that time-consuming and costly process, which, in 1998, is estimated to have cost the taxpayer about £120,000. That situation is contrary to our policy on full cost recovery and constitutes a public subsidy for a system of promotion for a profession that hardly needs taxpayers' assistance.
  Mr. Chris Mullin: Has my hon. Friend given any thought to abolishing QCs?
  Mr. Hoon: We have certainly given some thought to it.
  We shall also table amendments to enable the courts to check whether other Government agencies—such as the Department of Social Security, the police or local authorities—hold information on the whereabouts of a "missing" fine defaulter or community service dodger. That will remove one of the biggest obstacles to effective enforcement once responsibility for warrant execution is transferred from the police to magistrates courts. It is not acceptable that those who have been convicted of an offence and who owe a debt to society should be able to get away with their crimes, especially when the taxpayer has to foot the bill, and when an up-to-date address may well be held in other Government records.
  Mr. Grieve: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
  Mr. Hoon: I shall not give way again; I am sorry.
  Barriers to information sharing contributed to the fact that, at the end of 1997, some ₣70 million in fines was unpaid. That undermines the effectiveness of fines as a sentence. The information to be exchanged will be tightly limited to those details that will allow the offender's whereabouts to be traced—essentially the name, last known address and date of birth. It will be used for the specific purpose of tracing an individual so that a warrant may be executed. Wider disclosure will be forbidden. Improved information sharing will lead to more

  241
  cost-effective warrant enforcement as well as helping to restore public confidence in fines and community penalties.
  Mr. Grieve: I can now ask the question that I was trying to ask a moment ago. If we are transferring the execution of warrants outside the police force, does the Minister agree that those who will carry out the execution of those warrants, who will be certificated bailiffs, will need adequate powers of arrest if they are to discharge their functions properly?
  Mr. Hoon: We may have to consider that in Committee. These matters have only recently been developed, and the changes have only recently been worked out, so we can consider that when the Bill proceeds, as I hope that it will, into Committee.
  I hope that I have made it clear that the proposals in the Bill are not motivated by any simplistic effort to cut costs. The Government are not out to harm the legal professions. What we want is to create a system of justice that better meets the needs of our people—a system that is accessible to all; that is quick, of high quality, inexpensive, proportionate to the issue at hand and, above all else, fair.
  To that end, we shall direct taxpayers' money to the areas of highest priority—to those people who most need help and advice. We will not tolerate unjustified restrictive practices. We will ensure that citizens receive the best possible legal and advice services, whether they pay themselves, they are insured or they are assisted by the state. We shall continue to ensure that those whose liberty is at stake receive appropriate assistance. We want to transform our legal services so that they can best meet the challenges of the next century.
  I commend the Bill to the House.
  4.18 pm
  Mr. Edward Gander: I beg to move, To leave out from 'That' to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  `this House declines to give the Access to Justice Bill [Lords] a Second Reading because it is likely to reduce access to justice as a result of removing legal aid in civil cases and is likely to increase the costs of litigation as a result of the 100 per cent. uplift in fees under conditional fee arrangements, because the Bill contains no detailed costings or description of the proposed functions of the Legal Services Commission and imposes no statutory restrictions on the ambit of the Criminal Defence Service or the extent to which the Crown Prosecution Service can appear in the Crown Courts, because a system of wholly state-employed prosecutors and defenders creates the danger of miscarriages of justice, and because the Bill grants to the Lord Chancellor constitutionally unprecedented powers unilaterally to alter the rules of the independent legal profession.'
  I must declare an interest as a practising member of the Bar. I also wish to place on the record my thanks for the help that I have had in preparing my thoughts—but they are my thoughts—for this debate from the Law Society, the General Council of the Bar, Liberty, Justice, the National Consumer Council, the Consumers Association and the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux; and from the many individuals from within and outside the legal profession, including my right hon. and learned
  242
  Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), and in consumer groups, who have expressed concern about the Bill's contents.
  I pay tribute to my noble Friend Lord Kingsland, who led for the Opposition in the other place where the Bill began its life, and to the many other noble, and noble and learned Lords, of all parties and of none, who, in stark contrast to the contributions from the Government in and outside Parliament, raised the debate to the level that the subject deserves.
  In the other place, my noble Friend Lord Kingsland described the Bill as a skeleton Bill. On Second Reading, he said that the Bill contained no fewer than 17 new powers for the Lord Chancellor to exercise, either in the form of statutory instruments or in the form of directions. My noble and charitable Friend acquitted the Lord Chancellor of having drafted the Bill in this form because he had not yet made up his mind what to put into it. He assumed that the Lord Chancellor had the terms of the Bill in his head, and that the homework would be easy to complete by January 1999, when the Bill went into Committee in the other place. As it is now the middle of April and we have heard very little more from either the Lord Chancellor or his Minister in the House of Commons, I advise hon. Members to be a little less charitable today.
  My noble Friend Lord Kingsland called the Bill a skeleton. Lord Goodhart saw it as three separate Bills. Part IV deals with the new arrangements for appeals, and is in reality an administration of justice Bill. Parts V and VI are a magistrates courts Bill. Those parts of the Bill are largely uncontroversial, and, although they will need to be examined carefully in Committee, I suspect that they will not lead to great arguments of principle. Like, I believe, the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears), Conservative Members want to ensure that the local delivery of justice is not merely maintained but enhanced, especially in small towns and rural areas.
  I welcome the unification of the stipendiary Bench, although I question whether we need to change "stipendiary magistrates", a term that everyone understands, to "district judges (magistrates' courts)", which is longer and no clearer.
  Part II is devoted to Scotland, and I shall leave the Scots among us to grapple with it.
  Several parts of the Bill, although important, need not be dealt with now, and can be discussed more fully in Committee. What is of more immediate concern is the Government's approach to the reform—indeed, the effective abolition in most areas of civil law—of legal aid, and what will replace it; the Government's policy with regard to setting up the community legal service and the criminal defence service under the Legal Services Commission; and the Government's decision to give the Lord Chancellor—this Lord Chancellor—unprecedented powers to alter the rules of the hitherto independent legal professions. It is on those aspects in particular that the Opposition take issue with the Government, and it is because of the deficiencies and dangers we fear their plans involve that we shall ask the House to support our amendment tonight.
  Our concerns focus on parts I and III of the Bill, which deal with legal services and constitute the first of the Bills within a Bill. The Government have made much use of the English language: not since Orwell wrote "1984" have

  243
  the public seen a Government make such good use of it. In the field of law reform, they have shown again that they know all there is to be known about manipulating the language; but what they know about what is right and what is wrong, and about what is in the interests of the public whom they govern and what is not, is quite another matter.
  In calling this the Access to Justice Bill, the Government hoped to fool us into thinking that that was what it would achieve. In calling their White Paper "Modernising Justice", they fondly hoped we would believe that that was what was planned and would happen. In spending tens of thousands of pounds of public money on pamphlets repeating mantras designed by advertising executives, they feel sure that their message will not be lost. Ministers believe that, through the giving of breathless interviews to the lay and professional press, they are winning the arguments. They will, of course, win the votes, but they show no signs of winning the arguments.
  Since the beginning of the debate on legal reform, the Lord Chancellor has known the nature of the problem with which he must deal. As long ago as October 1987, when he addressed the Law Society at its Cardiff conference, he said that the legal aid budget had become a leviathan with a ferocious appetite, and that litigation was too expensive for both the legally aided and the unassisted litigant. He was right. The budget had grown over the past 10 years—although anyone listening to the same man speaking as shadow Lord Chancellor in the years before the last general election would have heard nothing but praise for the Labour legal aid system, and deep scepticism about what the proposals in the Bill and the Lord Chancellor's other reforms now include.
  Where the Lord Chancellor was wrong and ill advised was in his remedy to deal with the problem: his proposal to abolish legal aid across the board, save in criminal cases, and to replace it with conditional fee arrangements by 1 April 1998. No doubt it pleased the Treasury to hear those plans; no doubt it pleased the tabloids, and perhaps it pleased the less thoughtful of our Members of Parliament, to hear that at last a Lord Chancellor was taking money away from those whom they saw as members of an overpaid and selfish legal profession, rather than handing them more and more of the taxpayer's hard-earned cash. Nevertheless, the proposal was, and in large part remains, disastrous—not for the Treasury, which can divert any money saved by cutting taxes or increasing other public expenditure; not, perhaps, for the well-off and the comfortable, who have always been able to choose how to spend their money, and to sue or not to sue. For whom, then?
  The Government's reforms are badly flawed, even in their greatly revised form following their savaging by far better lawyers than me, far more knowledgeable social scientists than I could ever aspire to be and those much better to articulate the concerns of the many rather than the few. They are politically inept and economically illiterate, and no matter what the Government may intend, they will lead to a denial of access to justice for a huge swathe of the public.
  Ms Blears: If, as the hon. and learned Gentleman says, the Government's proposals are illiterate and incompetent, will he enlighten the House by telling us what he would
  244
  propose to ensure that the thousands of people in my constituency who are currently ineligible for legal aid can get advice, assistance and access to justice?
  Mr. Garnier: If the hon. Lady had listened to what her hon. Friend the Minister said, she would not have been deeply impressed by the way in which the Government are preparing to take legal aid away from the very constituents whom she wants to assist. In order to help those just above the legal aid limit, the Government propose to take legal aid away from those at present below the limit.
  If the hon. Lady supports such a policy, no doubt she will troop through the Lobby along with all the other whipped Members of her party this evening. However, I advise her to listen carefully to what I and my hon. Friends will say, and indeed to some of her own hon. Friends, I suspect. She may well be persuaded that what the Government are proposing—[Interruption.] I know that the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) has never had to bother with legal aid limits, but I believe that the hon. Member for Salford has a deep concern about the people in her constituency who are well below the limits currently applicable to legal aid.
  The hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) asked the Minister a moment ago what research the Lord Chancellor's Department had done. I asked that question way back in November 1997, and I did not get much of an answer then. The hon. and learned Gentleman did not get an answer just now. Did the Lord Chancellor's Department consult the Department of Social Security, the Home Office, the Attorney-General's chambers, the Scottish Office, the Welsh Office or the Northern Ireland Office to see what effects the planned reforms would have for their clients, their budgets and their policies?
  Did the Lord Chancellor's Department pay any attention to the research already done by others into conditional fee arrangements? Did it even ask its own Back Benchers how they would react to the wholesale demolition of the welfare state, which they fondly believe they have been elected to defend? Did it consult the professions and consumer groups? No, not at all.
  "I intend to consult the profession,"
  said the Lord Chancellor in October 1997. He continued:
  "Change is on the way, and the best thing to do with change is to manage it through consultation and in the spirit of consultation."
  There has since then been no consultation in any sense that could be recognised by users of ordinary English. The term "a Lord Chancellor's Department consultation exercise" has become an accepted oxymoron. Any changes that have come about, any improvements to the Government's plans between October 1997 and today have not been the result of consultation by Ministers. They have been forced on the Government who, since October 1997, have been in a more or less continual and chaotic retreat in the face of reasoned arguments from the groups and individuals whom I mentioned at the outset.
  The Minister cut a pretty lonely figure when he spoke in support of the Government's reforms in November 1997. He was surprised and disappointed, but he should not have been. It is clear that the Government paid little heed to the research carried out by the Policy Studies Institute and published under the title, "The Price of Success—Lawyers, Clients and Conditional Fees" in September 1997.

  245
  It is equally clear that the Government's approach to the subject since then has been inadequate. We have seen a continuing failure to look for, let alone to look at, the evidence. We have seen a Minister in this House who has become increasingly bored with his job and the difficult issues that it requires him to deal with. We have seen from the outset an incoherent policy ineptly advanced with increasing incoherence and desperation.
  It took my party 18 years in government to achieve what the present Government have managed in 18 months—to unite all their enemies against them. In this field of public policy, that alliance has been consolidated by the Government's actions and their high-handedness. It is stronger now than it has ever been.
  One has only to look at clause 1 to find out why. Is it not interesting that until reminded of the existence of clause 1, the Minister did not think it was appropriate to concern himself with it? The clause is headed "Principles" and sets out the principles applicable to part I of the Bill. Part I sets up the Legal Services Commission and its two subsidiary bodies, the community legal service and the criminal defence service. Whereas most people who have given the Bill some thought have applauded the introduction of the objectives in clause 1(2) by the combined votes of Cross-Bench and Opposition peers, the Lord Chancellor is so devoid of imagination or generosity or both that he can do no more than sneer. He grandly calls the objectives and the clause no more than a gimmick.
  Let us examine for a moment what the Lord Chancellor has dismissed as a gimmick. Clause 1(2) says:
  "The objectives are—

  (a) that persons have access to legal services and the machinery of justice which they would otherwise be unable to obtain on account of their means;

  (b) that such access is not to be impaired on account of disability (within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995) or the place in England and Wales where any legal services are sought;

  (c) that legal services and facilities of high quality be available such that disputes may be resolved, and proceedings determined, expeditiously, fairly and with the parties placed on an equal footing."

  Is any Labour Member prepared to stand up now and defend the Lord Chancellor's description of those objectives as a gimmick? Which of them will be prepared to vote for the deletion of clause 1, which the Minister has promised, and to explain why to the queue outside their local law centre or a citizens advice bureau in their constituency? Which of them will go to the waiting room of an inner-city legal aid solicitor's firm to tell their disabled, elderly or young but injured constituents or their carers that they supported the removal of the clause, and explain why?
  Clause 1 was passed by a majority of 71 in the other place. Is a larger majority of the whipped, the thoughtless and the ambitious prepared to do away with it and all that it represents? Before they do so, perhaps Labour Members should listen to the words of Ashley Holmes of the Consumers Association, Dan Brennan, the chairman of the General Council of the Bar, Vicki Chapman, the policy director of the Legal Action Group and Michael Mathews, the president of the Law Society. On 15 March, they wrote to The Times as follows:
  246
  "We are dismayed that the Lord Chancellor's Department has dismissed as a 'gimmick' an important new clause in the Access to Justice Bill, which has its third reading in the House of Lords on Tuesday.
  The clause was passed in the Lords last month by a majority of 71. It sets the Government the objective of ensuring that legal aid is available to those without means; of protecting individuals against discrimination on the basis of disability or where they live; and ensuring that the legally aided party is placed on an equal footing relative to the other side. Having promised to set its own objectives, the Government has tabled proposals which are plainly inadequate.
  The Lord Chancellor is planning to have these safeguards struck out in the Commons, despite the fact that the equal treatment of people before the law has been central to the thinking behind our system of legal aid since its inception some fifty years ago.
  The requirement that legal aid should be subject to available resources does not remove the need to set objectives for spending those resources. If the Lord Chancellor believes that such a clause is 'quite unrealistic', then we must conclude that from now on those on legal aid can be expected to receive a second-class service.
  Legislators put 'objectives' clauses in Bills for good reasons: to ensure that the executive is bound to deliver in practice what it regularly promises in its political rhetoric.
  A law without clear objectives may meet the government interest. Only a law with objectives meets the public interest."
  That argument would be less strong if objectives clauses were foreign to modern legislation, but they are not. They are not even foreign to this Government's legislation. The Food Standards Agency Bill has an objectives clause. The financial services and markets Bill has an objectives clause. The Legal Aid Board—a Government agency—has recognised since 1995 the need to pay heed to the special needs of the disabled under the green form scheme.
  Even the new civil procedure rules, which will come into effect on 26 April, have a set of objectives at rule 1, which says:

  "(1) These Rules are a new procedural code with the overriding objective of enabling the court to deal with cases justly.

  (2) Dealing with a case justly includes, so far as is practicable—

  (a) ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing;

  (b) saving expense;

  (c) dealing with the case in ways which are proportionate—

  (i) to the amount of money involved;

  (i) to the importance of the case;

  (iii) to the complexity of the issues; and

  (iv) to the financial position of each party;

  (d) ensuring that it is dealt with expeditiously and fairly; and

  (e) allotting to it an appropriate share of the court's resources, while taking into account the need to allot resources to other cases."

  I do not think that the Government can quarrel with those objectives. I also do not see any grounds for them to criticise the objectives in clause 1.
  Why are the Government not prepared to include in the Bill the desirable, civilised and humane objectives of ensuring access to justice for the poor, the disabled and those living in remote or inner-city areas—access that will allow them equality of arms in their claims against defendant corporations which are backed by insurers, against Government Departments and against public authorities? Placing those people on an equal footing does

  247
  not mean paying their publicly funded lawyers at the same rate as the defendant's lawyers, but means giving the publicly funded system sufficient money to attract lawyers of quality and experience to do the work.
  Mr. Sutcliffe: The hon. and learned Gentleman has been speaking for 16 minutes. Rightly, he has said why he opposes the Bill, but surely he also has to say what the Conservative party would do to improve services for people who are not able to get access to justice.
  Mr. Garnier: I am not sure how much of this or earlier debates the hon. Gentleman has been listening to, but clearly he is volunteering to serve on the Committee that considers the Bill. I hope to see him take a full part in it.
  Mr. Gareth Thomas: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gamier: No, because I am still answering the question that was asked by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe), if the hon. Gentleman would care to resume his seat.
  In 1990 or thereabouts, the previous Government introduced the ability of parties in certain cases to have conditional fee arrangements. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire said in an intervention to the Minister, the Conservative party has no objection to CFAs. What Conservative Members object to is the wholesale removal of legal aid and its replacement by CFAs as though that were the answer to the problem; it is not.
  We suggest—and I invite the Minister to agree—that CFAs should be allowed to run alongside the present legal aid arrangements. There is no justice in assisting people just above the legal aid limits by introducing CFAs, but destroying the chances of those below the current legal aid limits, forcing them to—
  Mr. Andrew Dismore: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gamier: I will give way first to the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) as he was so keen.
  Mr. Gareth Thomas: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman not accept that, in government, his party consistently and progressively tightened eligibility for legal aid, so that fewer and fewer people could receive it? Does he accept that that is no answer to the problem of how one contains public expenditure in the sector? Does he not accept that the Government are at least prepared to grasp the nettle and to match services to actual need in a proper, strategic way?
  Mr. Garnier: It seems that the hon. Gentleman's suggestion is that because, in his opinion, we got it wrong, his Government can get it wrong as well. That is not an answer to any suggestion that has been made this afternoon.
  Statutory objectives can be tested openly, but dispassionately in courts of law, as well as subjected to public opinion and scrutiny in the press. If what the Government claim they require for the public is what they are providing under the Bill, they have nothing to fear
  248
  from clause 1. It is no gimmick; it is absurd to say so. I am not sure that the Minister convinced himself when he responded to the intervention.
  If the wording of the clause that was drafted by Lord Lloyd of Berwick, who is incontrovertibly a world-class lawyer, does not meet the Minister's high standards of clarity and transparency after his somewhat less glittering career at the law, let him say so and come forward with a better idea. The Government's proposals will not increase or improve access to justice; they will inhibit it and for no good reason.
  A huge series of questions hangs over the CLS—the community legal service. It is likely to be overly bureaucratic. How much money will be spent on employing civil servants under the control of the Lord Chancellor and how many of them will there be? Money that has been, and should be, devoted to providing access to law, to advice and to representation for those who are unable to pay for it themselves will not be available.
  The position is made worse by the fact that CFAs are being foisted on to the public more or less wholesale as the only replacement for legal aid in civil cases. As I have said, we do not object to the introduction of CFAs as long as they are introduced alongside legal aid, and as long as the evidence of their success or failure as funding instruments for civil litigation in a wide range of cases is assessed after proper study.
  Mr. Dismore: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that CFAs are not the only alternative to legal aid? There are private insurance schemes, trade union schemes and many other ways of funding cases. Turning to his alternative suggestion of CFAs and legal aid working together, how will he get around the problem of adverse selection?
  Mr. Garner: I quite agree with the points that the hon. Gentleman made in the preamble to his question and I look forward to other funding instruments such as trade union support, which have been in existence for some time. The hon. Gentleman will have to educate me about the process of adverse selection. No doubt it is one of the jargon words that spill off his tongue easily, but it is not a concept with which I am familiar.
  Ms Blears: It is cherry picking.
  Mr. Garner: If it is cherry picking, we all know the answer as that point was addressed by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). Perhaps the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) should have listened to his hon. Friend.
  Why kill off legal aid for personal injury cases when, according to the hon. Member for Hendon, who is a former personal injury solicitor, that part of the legal aid budget as good as makes a profit for the Treasury? If it does not, the net cost is minuscule compared with the overall legal aid budget of £1.6 billion, to which the Minister averted. Why force people to take up CFAs, which have their place, but are not the answer to every type of litigation, when there is a marked dearth of insurance products to underpin them?
  The Minister's answers to my written parliamentary questions about the availability of insurance and to questions from my right hon. and learned Friend the

  249
  Member for North-East Bedfordshire are woefully lacking in detail. His understanding of the finances of small to medium-sized firms of solicitors is worrying.
  In 1997, the Lord Chancellor's Department was talking confidently about the insurance industry stepping into the breach left by the abolition of legal aid.
  Mr. Dismore: I do not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman has seen the publication "Litigation Funding". It indicates that nine different insurance schemes are already available for CFAs. I do not know whether he has read it, but it might enlighten him on that point.
  Mr. Garner: The hon. Gentleman must have X-ray eyes as I was about to enlighten the House, if that is the right expression, with some quotations from that magazine.
  In 1997, the Lord Chancellor's Department was talking constantly about the insurance industry stepping into the breach. However, I suggest that the Department had not bothered to ask the industry before making such statements. One can hardly fault the industry for being a little less enthusiastic than the Government about the job in question. Realising that they had gone far too far, the Government have now come up with a new ploy which the Minister mentioned.
  Apparently, there will now be a new type of insurance product—an after-the-event policy which will solve the problem of clients being unable to afford the premium. I gather that it is the Minister's brainchild. It is called the only-if-you-win policy, and it is quite simple. If the case is won, the premium is paid out of the client's winnings; if the case is lost, the client does not have to pay. So we are to have no win, no fee CFAs for legal fees and no win, no premium insurance to underpin the CFAs.
  The Minister says that everything is going well. In a quote that the hon. Member for Hendon was probably not going to use, he said:
  "The message that I am getting from insurers is that things are going well."
  Perhaps the teacups that he is looking into do not contain tea leaves because Mr. James Innes, the chairman of Abbey Legal Protection, is somewhat surprised by the Minister and asks:
  "Which insurers are giving him this message?"
  He continues:
  "In our view conditional fee insurance has not been proved to be totally workable from the industry's point of view."
  On the Minister's only-if-you-win ploy, he says:
  "We would not even entertain the idea."
  Clauses 29 and 30 may have been drafted hopefully, but in ignorance of the real world.
  It is not just on that account that the Bill and the Government's wider proposals will impede access to justice. The position of the community legal service is made worse by the fact that the civil side of the publicly funded system will get only what is left over after the criminal defence service has had its fill.
  Last month, the Lord Chancellor wrote in The House magazine:
  250
  "The establishment of the Community Legal Service lies at the heart of the Bill. The CLS will be a cornerstone in protecting everyone's basic rights. My long-term vision is of a comprehensive network of legal advice points across England and Wales"—
  as if justice were to be available like cash from the wall of a bank.
  "They will deliver quality legal information and advice to the disadvantaged and socially excluded in areas of law which most directly affect their everyday lives."
  I suggest that we should be wary of Lord Chancellors who have long-term visions as that suggests that they may not be concentrating fully on what they are doing now.
  In Committee in the other place, the Lord Chancellor said that the truth was that the only money that was left for civil legal aid was what was left over after the requirements of criminal legal aid had been met, as those requirements were underpinned, as they should be, by international obligations. Neither I nor, I suspect, any Opposition Member needs an international convention to tell us what is right and what is wrong. That is embedded in the very marrow of our bones.
  Of course the criminal defendant whose liberty and reputation are at risk should have unhindered access to advice and representation. If he cannot pay for that himself, he should have public assistance to do so; but he should not have to get advice and representation from a nationalised criminal defence service—from state-employed careerists. That is all the more true when one bears in mind that the prosecutor could now be a civil service colleague of the defence lawyer.
  In the other place, on Second Reading, Baroness Kennedy of the Shaws said:
  "The idea of introducing a criminal public defender system into Britain fills me with great alarm."
  It should fill others with great alarm, too. She knows how such a system works in the United States and is not impressed. No doubt, she said, it would be cost efficient,
  "But surely in justice we are concerned with more than that? The horrifying levels of plea bargaining in the United States will almost certainly visit themselves upon our courts if such a system is introduced.
  What happens with such a system? The young and the older but less able work within it; the turnover is incredibly high and lawyers quickly become beaten down. Collusion becomes part of the system—collusion between lawyers … prosecution and defence, with the court in order to get through the bulk of cases as quickly as possible."—[Ofcial Report, House of Lords, 14 December 1998; Vol. 595, c. 1157-58.]
  The noble Baroness also asked a question that, so far, the Government have failed satisfactorily to answer: might not the Lord Chancellor be creating a legacy, namely a system that can only disadvantage the many, particularly the poor?
  Mr. Mitchell: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that the New Zealand commission on legal services, which examined public defender services in California and Hong Kong, decided that they were the most effective means of providing legal defence for the mass of people in metropolitan societies, where the population was sufficiently concentrated to produce economies of scale and great efficiency?
  Mr. Garnier: Although that may or may not be true in metropolitan societies—such a system is current in Canada and seems to work reasonably well—the position

  251
  being advanced by the Government does not meet the concerns of the hon. Gentleman. It certainly does not meet my concerns or those of my hon. Friends.
  Our concerns are made worse by schedule 5 and part III—this is, indeed, a Bill of schedules, which take up as much print as the rest of the Bill. Schedule 5 and part III of the Bill would give the Executive control of the courts and undermine the separation of powers under the constitution. It used to be uncontroversial to say that, in a free society, just as the judiciary had to be independent, the Bar and the advocate had to be independent. The Executive must be denied control of the core functions of the legal professions, which service through advocacy the courts that the judiciary operates.
  I should like briefly to quote from a speech made last year by Mr. Sydney Kentridge QC, a respected member of the Bars of both England and Wales and South Africa. He said that
  "during the years of apartheid in South Africa, there were frequent threats from the Government to place the Bar under the control of a central council with Government-nominated members. This proposal was consistently and successfully resisted by the whole of the Bar, including the many members who normally supported the Government in its policies and its legislation. It was well understood that to remove the control of the profession from the provincial Bar Councils and the General Council of the Bar would have meant the end of the independence of the profession. What was also well understood was that the independence of the Bench was inextricably linked with the independence of the Bar."
  That advice and the hundreds of years of good sense that those words represent are all to go because this Lord Chancellor, this Minister and this Government equate the undermining of freedom and justice under the rule of law and the constitution with "streamlining".
  In the Government's explanatory notes to the Bill, we find the words:
  "This power will enable the Lord Chancellor to change on his own initiative unreasonable or restrictive rules on the part of a professional body."
  Those words may be soothing and reassuring, but the underlying message is both menacing and distinctly chilling.
  With fewer firms providing legal services—estimates suggest that the number of legal aid firms will decrease from more than 11,000 to about 3,000—and with those remaining being concentrated in the larger conurbations remote from rural and provincial England and Wales, firms will be more selective in their choice of client and will not have the resources to assist the needy. Now, the current jargon of "adverse selection" comes rapidly to mind.
  Mr. John M. Taylor: Would my hon. and learned Friend be kind enough to go back to that passage that he quoted concerning the control of the Bar? Would he remind me whether the word "unreasonable" occurred in that passage? If so, would he then be kind enough to give way to me again?
  Mr. Garnier: It entirely depends why. I do not want to detain the House, as I have taken up a good deal of time already. However, Mr. Kentridge said that the independence of the judiciary—which is vital in a free society, as was recognised even in apartheid South Africa—depends on the independence of the legal professions that appear as advocates before it. Without an
  252
  independent advocates' profession—free of the control of the Executive through the office of the Lord Chancellor—freedom under the law in terms of the constitution as we know and understand it is very much imperilled. Does my hon. Friend wish to intervene?
  Mr. Taylor: No. My hon. and learned Friend has clarified the matter.
  Mr. Garnier: I was saying that there will be fewer legal aid firms providing advice, and that they will be concentrated in the conurbations. That is a product of a policy that will prove to be socially divisive. It is a policy for the few, not the many. It is a policy made by new Labour.
  It is said that the Lord Chancellor hopes to see his name inscribed on the pediment of a great public building—perhaps a palace of justice—as a fitting memorial to his work. I wish him well in that ambition—as I am sure we all do—but I fear that if the Bill goes through as he would have it, he will not find his name picked out in gold on the Strand, but scratched angrily on the walls of every benefits office in the country.
  4.52 pm
  Mr. Denzil Davies: In a debate on access to justice, I suppose that lawyers are expected to declare an interest. I do so, although I hope that hon. Members—including my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), who has now left theChamber—will accept that even barristers and solicitors sometimes can have a concern for the justice system that is not motivated by special pleading.
  Whatever views one may have about the various individual measures in the Bill, it must be said realistically that the time had come for a fundamental review of the operation of the justice system and, in particular, the legal aid system. The present legal aid system goes back to an Act of 1949: 50 years ago. It would be trite—and wasteful of the time of the House—to say that society has changed beyond recognition since then. Those of us who are lawyers sometimes ignore the effect of economic forces on legal jurisprudence and the administration of justice.
  Enormous economic changes, especially in the 1980s and 1990s, have put pressure on the legal system, practitioners and Governments that could not have been envisaged way back in 1949. Governments, society and commerce are now structured to serve the citizen and the consumer, and their ever-burgeoning rights. Governments encourage citizens to take up their rights and, when rights are taken up—and sometimes denied—they can be enforced only by seeking redress through the courts. That costs money.
  The growth of personal injury actions, and actions for professional and medical negligence, reflects what has been happening, especially in the late 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. Since I started at the Bar in the 1960s, there has been an amazing growth in the judicial review system which enables people to challenge the decisions made by public bodies.
  One of the Labour Government's first acts was to enshrine the European convention on human rights into the law of the United Kingdom, and that will inevitably lead to more court action, more citizens seeking to enforce

  253
  more rights, and more demands on public funds. I missed the statement, but I am told that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary postponed the operation of that legislation for a short time. I think that he said that the judges need to be educated. In some ways, human rights legislation bridges the legal and the political. Perhaps the judges need to be put on message. I do not know.
  I believe that my right hon. Friend said that we must be careful because sharp lawyers could pull the wool over the eyes of the judges who have to administer the convention. Perhaps an underlying reason for the postponement is the cost that is bound to accrue to the legal aid system.
  The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) mentioned the choice of rights that Governments make in the financing of court action. Fashionable choices benefit and unfashionable ones recede. Perhaps personal injury and professional negligence cases are not so fashionable any more, as other rights become more politically correct and have to be financed, partly by Government.
  There are economic pressures on the traditional family. There is pressure on both parents of small children to go out to work and there is no doubt that that has led to an increase in the legal aid budget for family litigation and matrimonial cases. The Library's notes on the Bill point out that cases involving children's rights now absorb about a quarter of the net spending on civil legal aid. The cost of funding welfare, immigration and employment rights cases in the higher courts also creates pressures.
  I disagree with some of what my hon. Friend the Minister said, but I agree that, frankly, something had to be done. Whatever view one takes on conditional fees and on contracting out and franchising, the present system could not have been allowed to continue. Whatever system is put in place will not be perfect and there will always be pluses and minuses.
  Having paid a back-handed compliment to my hon. Friend the Minister, perhaps I can devote the rest of my speech to an expression of my profound reservation about one aspect of the Bill: the proposals on the criminal justice system. Clauses 13 and 14 contain proposals to set up what is in effect a state defence unit, a service to mirror the Crown Prosecution Service. I do not know why any Government would want to do that, but apparently it will be the Tweedledum to the Tweedledee of the CPS, the state prosecution service that, up to now, has not covered itself in glory.
  The Bill originally contained powers to enable the Government to employ state advocates to defend those accused of crimes, as well as a power to use a franchise to contract independent advocates. As my hon. Friend said, the House of Lords was not too happy with that suggestion in respect of state employees. The Lord Chancellor tried to convince the other place that everything would be all right; there would be a mix of independent advocates and state-employed advocates defending those accused of crime. Quite sensibly, Members of the other place were not impressed by the Lord Chancellor's arguments, or assured by his assurances. As I understand it, they removed from the Bill the power to enable state employees to be used as advocates in the new criminal defence service. I believe that the House of Lords was right to do that.
  254
  I had hoped that my hon. Friend the Minister would say, "All right then, we will call it a day", but not at all. As he has said, the Government are determined to drive this measure through and put that power back into the legislation. While preparing my speech for the debate, I came across a document from the Home Office that I received recently; it refers to a business plan for the criminal justice system. In paragraph 5.3.19, it reiterates the plan for a state defence system with state defence advocates. The document is most interesting.
  Dr. Lynda Clark: Would my right hon. Friend have the same objection if the scheme were entirely voluntary? In these days of consumer choice, if defendants wished to use a state defence system, what would be my right hon. Friend's objection to that?
  Mr. Davies: I should still object to a state defence system. It is preferable for advocates to be independent of the state. That may be an old-fashioned view—I accept that entirely—but I believe that, within the criminal justice system, it is certainly better that advocates who defend people and their liberty should be independent of the state.
  I cannot resist turning back to the document. It is described as an example of joined-up Government. Indeed, we have a joined-up photograph—the first that I have seen. The photograph is of—if I may borrow my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's phrase—three sharp lawyers: the Lord Chancellor, the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General. The Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor are elbow to elbow and shoulder to shoulder, but I notice that my right hon. and learned, and very good, Friend the Attorney-General is elbow to elbow with them, but not shoulder to shoulder. I do not know whether that makes him a sharper Welsh lawyer than the other two—my hon. Friend the Minister may agree, or he may hedge his bets. Clearly, the Government are determined that this joined-up proposal will provide us with a state defence system.
  My hon. Friend will say—as he and the Lord Chancellor have said—that there will be a mix; there will be some state employees, and other employees will be under contract. However, the whole history of Government, especially Governments in these perhaps more authoritarian times, shows that Governments—of whatever persuasion—will try to extend their control. If that power were reintroduced, we would find that, gradually, there were more state employees and fewer independent advocates operating in the criminal justice system. The state employees will have mixed duties; they will have a duty—as they should—to their employer. No doubt, they will try to balance that duty with their duty to the criminally accused. They will be subjected to all those instruments of bureaucratic control that we see these days: the codes of conduct; the rules of best practice; the guidelines that are not binding but are binding; the pressure to settle cases; and of course the ubiquitous and inevitable cash limits. That is how it will be in the state defence system.
  The criminal justice system is a creature of the state. By its nature, it must be so. However, I believe in two old-fashioned concepts—checks and balances—of which we hear little these days. The presence of independent advocates—solicitors or banisters—whose primary duty is to the accused and the court, would be the best check and balance in the criminal justice system.

  255
  Like most of us, I have never been accused of a criminal offence. People who are accused are very lonely. Once arrested, a person goes to a state police station where he is surrounded by state police. Under the present system, an independent duty solicitor will try to assist the accused. When he is charged, another independent solicitor may prepare his defence.
  Under the proposed system, more and more advocates will become state advocates, and the duty solicitor will be a state solicitor, as will the solicitor preparing the defence. If a case goes to a magistrates court at present, there is a state prosecutor, but the defence advocate is independent. When the system is changed, the defence advocate will be a state advocate. That is not sensible.
  At Crown courts, at present, independent advocates prosecute. When rights of audience are extended, most, if not all, prosecutors will be state prosecutors. If we move gradually to a state defence system, most, if not all, those who defend people accused of crime will also be employed by the state. The state will have complete control of the criminal justice system.
  Then there are the judges. They are state employees, even if they are high-class employees. However, they are independent, partly because they are drawn from the ranks of independent criminal advocates. As the state encroaches gradually into advocacy in criminal cases, where will the judges come from? They will be drawn from advocates who have prosecuted or defended for the state, or done both. Perhaps 90 or 95 per cent. of judges will have done nothing all their lives but prosecute or defend for the state. That is not proper in what, perhaps optimistically, I hope will remain a liberal democracy.
  What about books? Most books on procedure and evidence What about books? Most books on procedure and evidence—more important in criminal cases than in civil—are written, as they must be, by practitioners. In future, new editions will be written by state advocates, be they prosecutors, defenders or judges. The whole criminal justice system will be tied to the state with none of the checks and balances that I think desirable in a western liberal democratic society.
  Mr. Martin Linton: Like me, my right hon. Friend is paid a monthly salary through the state. Does that make him any less independent as a Member of Parliament?
  Mr. Davies: No, it does not, but, as a Member of Parliament, I am not concerned with the liberty of others every day in the criminal courts. It is extremely important that the duty should be a duty to the client. In any case, as a Member of Parliament, I am not employed by the state, I hold an office—but we shall leave that aside. I am old fashioned enough to believe that an employee has a duty to his employer. An advocate with a duty to his employer will also have a duty, rightly, to his client, as well as a duty to the court. I do not believe that it is always possible to balance all those duties.
  I see no need for the new system. My right hon. and hon. Friends have introduced what is in the main a good Bill, and I do not object to it in general, but I do not see why they have to try to create a state defence system staffed mainly by state employees.
  Dr. Lynda Clark: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the conflict that he foresees between contractual duties
  256
  and the duty to the court and the client are anticipated in the Bill, which makes it plain that the overriding duty of any practitioner is to the interests of justice, not to the contractual duties that he may have as an emplopyee?
  Mr. Davies: Of course, but life is not quite like that. A young person working in a state defence service will have conflicts between duty to the employers, duty to the client and duty to the court. I do not understand why it is necessary to create those conflicts, and I cannot understand why my hon. and learned Friend seems to be supporting the idea.
  There is no need for such a system. We could easily have a criminal defence system without making advocates employees of the court. I repeat my hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will change their minds. The Bill is not a bad Bill; it applies to a difficult situation and must have been difficult to draft. None the less, I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will think again and will not reincorporate into the Bill the power that the House of Lords threw out.
  5.12 pm
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: I begin by referring to the concerns expressed by one of my constituents, a lady solicitor specialising in personal injury work, because what she says encapsulates several concerns that many of us—not only Conservative Members but, as we shall no doubt hear later, Members from other parties, too—have about the Government's proposals.
  My constituent, Carole Green, wrote as follows:
  "I am writing with regards to the Lord Chancellor's proposal to eliminate legal aid for personal injury matters … As a … practitioner with a client base comprising many personal injury clients I am writing to express my concern at the government's proposals… I have dealt with numerous clients over the years who, but for the provision of legal aid, would not have been able to have taken their claim forward. The vast majority of my personal injury clients have been successful in their cases, approximately 90 per cent., and the cost to the state at the end of the day in those successful cases was nil.
  I believe that legal aid provides a public service for personal injury victims at a remarkably low cost. I believe it is a good use of public money and is good value for money. Further, it plays an important part in holding wrongdoers liable in damages and as a consequence"
  ․this important point was not really touched upon even in the extensive debates in another place․
  "improves health and safety generally both in industry and elsewhere.
  I would like to stress that I am not writing because I am concerned that the removal of legal aid will have any effect on my practice."
  Carole Green can be acquitted of any argument in her own interest, because
  "less than 50 per cent. of [her] clients on all matters have been legally aidable in the past and I do not expect that level of private work to alter. I write solely because I am concerned that if legal aid for personal injury matters is removed many victims will have suffered an injustice in respect of which they will not be able to gain compensation.
  I sincerely hope you will be able to take my views into account in the forthcoming debate."
  I am delighted to have been able to put those views before the House

  257
  I should declare an interest, not present but past, as a member of the Bar who practised for seven years from chambers in the midlands, and worked on many personal injury cases. Also, although this may be more relevant to my later remarks, I should mention that I am a former chairman of the corporate Bar—the Bar Association for Commerce, Finance and Industry, which represents barristers employed by companies—whose views I support.
  I shall now draw attention to what was said in another place not by Conservative peers but by peers on the Government side. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Gamier) has already mentioned the concerns expressed by Baroness Kennedy of the Shaws. Throughout my career as a barrister, Helena Kennedy QC, as she then was, was regarded as a pre-eminent radical barrister. Indeed, she was regarded almost as a talisman by many Labour Members, and was quoted extensively and widely supported. Yet her criticisms of the Bill—especially, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough said, of the proposals for a public defender system—are savage.
  Baroness Kennedy said:
  "I also have queries about some aspects of the block contracting system… How do you ensure that specialists who are suited to the case are brought in? Will the block contracting system relate only to run-of-the-mill cases? What happens with the unusual or specialist case? To what extent are we"
  she means her own side, the Government—
  "sacrificing choice to efficiency in terms of cost?"
  That last question is the most important. I intervened in the Minister's opening speech to ask whether the Bill was based on an attempt to save the Chancellor of the Exchequer money rather than, as is claimed, an attempt to increase access to justice. I asked the question because the Government are again pretending to do one thing while actually doing another.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough is right to say that the Bill is an example of the Government's Orwellian Newspeak; a word means what they, especially the Lord Chancellor and his Ministers in this place, want it to mean. The Bill is not about access to justice but about saving money for the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Mr. Dismore: Should not the response to the criticism of block contracts be to consider the trade union legal schemes, which have operated a block contracting system for decades? Through that process, they have achieved cost-effective and high-quality legal services, which are provided by specialist practitioners. I see no reason why the new scheme should not operate in a similar way.
  Mr. Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman has extensive experience of working in that area, but I think that he would recognise that Baroness Kennedy suggested in the debate on the Bill in another place that the safeguards to ensure that the right things happen were not built in. The hon. Gentleman takes his own Government on trust, but the House has a duty to scrutinise what the Government propose. I say that there are not sufficient safeguards in the Bill to ensure that what the hon. Gentleman wants will happen.
  258
  I have no doubt that the trade union schemes have detailed rules and safeguards, but there are none on the face of the Bill. There should be. That is why Baroness Kennedy and I are concerned. Let me remind the hon. Gentleman, and Ministers, of some of the other things that Baroness Kennedy said. I agree with her criticisms. She says that she learned in her early days at the Bar—as I, like all other young barristers, did—that clerks in chambers had a clear idea of the importance of finding the right barrister for a particular case.
  Baroness Kennedy rightly asked:
  "Will there be space in the block contracting system for the securing of the right barrister for a particular case? Will it be possible for any solicitor up and down the country to pursue the well known advocate who is a leader in the field of prisoner rights if he is not on the solicitor's normal block contract list of counsel? If the solicitor has a case involving mental health"—
  I dealt with many mental health cases in my practice at the Bar—
  "will he be able to secure the specialist advocate who deals with mental health cases and has taken many of them to the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords?
  Will the solicitor be able to secure the counsel who have been at the heart of so many of the miscarriage of justice trials? Will the solicitor be able to seek out banisters who have specialist knowledge and understanding of, for example. domestic violence?"
  That is again a field in which I conducted many cases. Those are important points, and I am no more reassured than she was by the Bill.
  Baroness Kennedy's savage criticism of the criminal public defender system should cause Labour Members great concern. She said:
  "I know that our Lord Chancellor is committed to human rights… But might he also be creating another legacy— introduction of a system which can only disadvantage the many, particularly the poor?"—[Official Report, House of Lords, December 1998; Vol. 595, c. 1157–58.
  It is of concern that the Lord Chancellor has argued in respect of the Bill the exact opposite of what he argued in opposition. His response when he was taxed with what he had said in 1989 in the Lords debate was interesting. It struck me as a paradigm of the reason why he is regarded by many, even on his own side politically, as arrogant and dismissive of challenges from whatever political direction. He said:
  "I am minded to invoke what I believe a Victorian judge said when taxed with a previous decision he had made from which he had intellectually parted company in his own mind when sitting in an appellate court. He said something along the lines, "That is how it appeared to me then, but it is not how it appears to me now". If great judges can get away with that, mere Lord Chancellors can as well."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 February 1999; Vol. 597, c. 617.]
  We are not taken in by his false modesty. It is yet another example of Newspeak.
  The powers that the Bill introduces for the Lord Chancellor were rightly criticised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough. They also received detailed scrutiny in the other place. The General Council of the Bar, on whose inner cabinet, the general management committee, I had the honour to serve from 1992 and 1995, points out that a report by the House of Lords Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation sharply criticised the wide-ranging powers that the Bill would hand to the Lord Chancellor, who would be unchecked by parliamentary scrutiny. That took up much time in another place and no doubt will here,

  259
  perhaps in Committee. Although I do not expect to serve on the Committee because of other commitments, it is important on Second Reading to consider carefully whether the Lord Chancellor, who has often been compared to Cardinal Wolsey, in this Bill combines his usual Wolseyish attitude with that of Wolsey's boss through the so-called Henry VIII clauses that give him such untrammelled powers.
  The Bar Council adds that the powers in the Bill as it stood when originally introduced included the constitutionally unprecedented power for the Lord Chancellor unilaterally to change the rules of independent legal professions. As noted earlier, that power was repeatedly and unsuccessfully sought by the pre-democracy apartheid Governments in South Africa. The Lord Chancellor has since undertaken to limit such interventions to rules that he considers unduly restrict rights of audience and to litigate. The Bar Council would like the powers to be subject to approval by a majority of the senior judges. That is an important constitutional safeguard in terms of the doctrine of the separation of powers.
  The Law Society has no doubt sent its helpful briefing notes to all hon. Members. It is concerned about the Bill's equal opportunities implications. It would be helpful if the Government, on more mature consideration, were prepared to allow legal aid to continue for personal injury cases involving the elderly, those who suffer from mental incapacity or illness, and, most importantly, children. I sincerely urge the Government to consider those special needs.
  I am concerned by the danger that the Government's introduction of the block contract system will make it much more difficult for people in rural areas to obtain a proper range of independent legal advice. Legal fees insurance, whose use the Government are keen to expand, will be expensive for all but the clearest cases. The uplift on no win, no fee will increase costs. While I support people taking out legal expenses insurance, it is wrong to make the entire system dependent on its existence, as the Government seek in these proposals. Those are serious concerns which have been commented on at length in another place and by many independent commentators.
  Conservative peers have rightly described the Government's proposals as nationalising the criminal justice system. In criminal cases, it is important to maintain the suspect's or the criminal defendant's confidence in the system and ensure his or her effective participation in the process. That is what the Government said that they wanted in the White Paper "Modernising Justice". I am not sure that they have achieved that.
  My constitutional concerns are among the most serious matters that the House must consider. I hope that the Government, if not today, then in Committee, will consider further questions, particularly in relation to ethnic minorities and cultural differences. How will the Bill and the Government's reformed legal system ensure that those issues are properly addressed? How will the duty of advocates to a court, particularly under a public defender system, to act in the interests of justice be measured and monitored in relation to clause 36? How will the impartiality of the public defender system be maintained? How will lawyers' independence be measured? What monitoring procedures will be put in place? What motivation will there be for lawyers to
  260
  achieve the most appropriate results for their clients? What steps will be taken to preserve public confidence in what is effectively a nationalised system?
  On the budgetary implications, have the transitional and start-up costs been evaluated? I fear that the new bureaucracy shows some of the signs of the problems that arose from the over-bureaucratic nature of the Child Support Agency. Labour Members would be worried if they thought that they were creating a new Child Support Agency through a nationalised legal service. Have the costs of accommodation for the criminal defence service, presently carried out by private firms of solicitors, been evaluated? Have the administrative running costs, such as offices, salaries and pensions, been estimated? Have the training costs of the staff to run the new agencies been considered? Where is the pool of appropriately qualified people to staff the new agencies? Have the administrative costs of graduated fee schemes been compared with those of the proposals? I hope that the Government will answer all those serious questions. I am not convinced that the Government have got the proposals right.
  5.29 pm
  Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: I begin by declaring an interest as a practising member of the Bar. I declare another interest, which is that 25 years ago I was one of the team working in the Islington legal advice centre, which was one of the first to be set up. That part of London was at the time a deprived and destitute area and nothing like the new Labour paradise that it has since become. We set up the centre in a church hall. We had our 25th anniversary last year and it was attended by many elderly people, some of whom were unrecognisable from 25 years before. We were all proud to have been part of that centre, and the opening remarks by my hon. Friend the Minister could not have been more welcome in those circumstances. I congratulate him, the Lord Chancellor and the Government on setting up the community legal service to give some coherence and direction to the patchwork of provision, especially in welfare and housing law. I agree that it is high time that a larger proportion of our legal aid budget was spent on those worthy aims.
  I also congratulate the Government on that part of the Bill that will extend on a statutory basis the right of audience of solicitors to the higher courts. Many members of my profession will not thank me for saying that, but I believe in the virtues of a split profession and they are not assisted by restrictive practices. The provision will not make that much difference. Solicitors are welcome to taste the delights of myopic, querulous and bad-tempered judges if they wish to do so, and I am confident that few of them will. I have never perceived any reason for such a restrictive practice and I welcome the change.
  I further congratulate the Government on the provisions in the Bill that will ensure that those who apply for silk and are unsuccessful will bear the costs of that unsuccessful application. I give that my full-blooded and wholehearted support, realising as I do that it has no retrospective effect. That brings me to the end of that embarrassing eulogy on the Bill, because it also contains two aspects that are dangerous. One of them is profoundly dangerous for civil liberties, for all the reasons so eloquently articulated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) in his long and valid analysis of the setting up of the criminal defence service.

  261
  I take the point that the Bill includes a provision to ensure the ability of those charged with criminal offences to choose their advocate from the criminal defence service or from the independent part of the legal profession, but the Bill does not set out in stone or in any other way the relative quantum that is to be allocated between the independent profession and the criminal defence service, which will be entirely in the employ of the state. Of course, it is the avowed intention of this Government that the criminal defence service employed by Government will take a small part of the quantum of funds that are available and thus genuine choice will remain. I accept the Lord Chancellor's assurance on that point, but we cannot question him about it in this Chamber. That is a pity and an anachronism, but I accept my hon. Friend the Minister's assertions on the point.
  The present Lord Chancellor is, of course, a luminous lawyer and a beautiful human being. He is, no doubt, untouched by the trappings or temptations of power. However, his predecessors in the past 1,200 years have not all been so luminous and there is no guarantee that his successors in the coming millennia will be any better or worse. In those circumstances, handing to an unelected Government appointee the power to control those who defend against the state is dangerous and unwelcome. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister takes that point seriously and I hope that he will consider it further in Committee. That provision concerns me, but in itself would not cause me to take the grave and serious step of not supporting the Government over the Bill.
  However, the main issue in the Bill is of such gravity and seriousness that I say, with a heavy heart, that I will be unable to support the Government on Second Reading. When the Bill returns to this House after its Committee stage, it may be in a different form and worthy of support, but at the moment there is a profound lacuna and danger central to the Bill and it must be addressed. It is the removal of legal aid from those who wish to bring meritorious claims for personal injury.
  Contrary to the imputations that my hon. Friend the Minister may have made in his remarks, my reservations are not those of a reactionary lawyer. As has been pointed out already, those reservations are shared by the Consumers Association, the Law Centres Federation, the Advice Services Alliance, the Federation of Independent Advice Centres, the Child Poverty Action Group, the National Consumer Council, Liberty, Justice, Shelter and the Legal Action Group. To that list it is now possible to add the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, a robust body which was the strong proponent of conditional fee agreements. It has recently stated that the provisions in the Bill are a mean trick, because it was never intended that conditional fee agreements should replace legal aid.
  I was astonished that the provision was included in the Bill. I perceive no logical, legal, constitutional or social reason why it should be there. The first question is what is wrong with the present system, which provides legal aid for the poor, the disabled and children who require it to pursue damages for personal injury. The answer is dissyllabic: nothing. The system is, by a street, the most efficient part of our welfare and social service provision. Some 75,000 cases per annum are granted legal aid for the pursuance of personal injury cases at a gross cost to the fund of —226 million. Of that, 84 per cent. is clawed
  262
  back because of the success rate of litigants. Some 91 per cent. of cases are successful. Any imputation against legal aid lawyers, who take those cases at an average net cost of £559, that they are overcharging—or not carrying out their public duties to the standard that we are entitled to expect£simply does not pass muster. I have practised a little more than my hon. Friend the Minister and I know that if I had anywhere near a 91 per cent. success rate, I would consider myself to be infinitely more successful than I am or have ever been.
  Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: Such a high success rate implies that legal aid sponsors well-founded, reasonable cases. Can my hon. and learned Friend give a single example of anyone who has been ineligible for legal aid and has failed to arrange a conditional fee agreement? I know of no such person.
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews: The question is well put. Since the 1995 provisions, which enabled conditional fee agreements to be entered into in such instances, cases that were funded by legal aid have been specifically excluded. As yet, there has been no research to determine what the effect will be when 75,000 cases come on to the market. None of my constituents have been affected, but my clients and those of my chambers who were just above the legal aid limit have been ineligible for legal aid. They were not able to fund their cases largely because of the disabilities that they sustained as a result of the accident or misadventure for which they sought to sue.
  Like most lawyers, I do not necessarily like contingency or conditional fees. However, I have always believed that it was absurd to prevent my colleagues and me from saying, "I will take your case for nothing or for much less than I would normally charge in the knowledge that, if we are successful, I will get my normal fee. If we are unsuccessful, I will take less." I do not believe there is anything inherently wrong with that system—although I do not like it.
  Dr. Lynda Clark: It is important to recognise that speculative actions have always been possible in Scotland. Advocates in Scotland have always been able to do what my hon. and learned Friend describes. The Scottish Bar has assisted people by taking cases for nothing and, if they are successful, the fees are recovered from the other side. However, it is important to recognise that there is no uplift on the basis of success—which is another issue altogether.
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews: That is an example of the great wisdom of the Scottish legal system. I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for pointing out an essential failing in the Bill: the uplift concept. She has taken the words out of my mouth. In the circumstances about which I was postulating, I would not have contemplated saying that I would charge an extra fee. I would have simply said, "I will share your risk on the basis of what I would normally, honourably and properly charge."
  Mr. John M. Taylor: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way. I defer to and respect his knowledge about such matters. When he has taken conditional fee cases, has he had any difficulty defining a win or, to use his words, a success? Does he agree that

  263
  an independent third-party lawyer should sometimes give secondary advice to the client in achieving a definition of a win?
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews: I do not wish to get involved in the minutiae of these matters, but I accept that that is an immediate problem. It is difficult to determine what is a success and the point at which one should demand a success fee. I have never taken a case on the basis of a success fee. Before 1995, we were not allowed to make conditional fee agreements. The problem to which the hon. Gentleman refers is just one reason why I would never take a success fee case.
  Mr. Dismore: To answer the question raised by the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor), the definition of a success is always incorporated in the terms of the agreement, so that is not a problem. I have often felt embarrassed when clients who are funded by legal aid have had to pay, month after month, substantial contributions towards the legal aid agreement. The beauty of conditional fees is that they do not cost the client a penny—and the Bill will improve the situation further. Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that such clients are better off under conditional fee agreements than under legal aid? Bearing in mind the substantial success rate of cases funded by legal aid, most people would qualify for conditional fees. I have often advised clients not to opt for legal aid for that reason.
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews: I shall deal with that interesting and lengthy intervention as follows. My hon. Friend will know that more than 80 per cent. of legal aid cases are accepted on a non-contributory basis, so no contribution is paid in more than 80 per cent. of cases. The recipients of legal aid are employed in only 30 per cent. of those cases: the vast majority of recipients are pensioners who are reliant on benefit or children. That answers my hon. Friend's first point, which is not a bad one. I accept that conditional fee agreements have advantages at the margins.
  However, my hon. Friend's argument does not pertain to the majority of cases—the 50,000 or 60,000 cases a year as opposed to the 20,000 cases that are funded under conditional fee agreements. My hon. Friend makes an interesting intervention, but it does not deal with the main thrust of my argument. As I understand it, he does not advocate the ending of legal aid—although he is an active proponent of conditional fee agreements. I respect him for that and I am not antagonistic towards him. In order to ascertain who supports this noble system, it is necessary to refer to a much quoted passage from 1996, which states:
  "Supporters of legal aid must never cease to emphasise that it is a highly successful public social service. In civil cases which reached judgements in 1995/96, there were judgements in favour of the assisted person in 81 per cent. of cases. The proportion of cases where there was either a settlement or judgement in favour was 91 per cent. PI litigation is a category conspicuously successful. Obviously the greater the success rate the closer the legal aid system can approach self-funding. These success figures tell against any argument that legal aid is generally granted too readily, but it must be remembered that there are a small number of very high cost cases which account for a large proportion of expenditure."
  264
  That ringing endorsement of this noble system was delivered by the Lord Chancellor in 1996 before he achieved his high office.
  Mr. Hawkins: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for endorsing my earlier point about the Lord Chancellor's rather sudden change of view upon his appointment. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman go further—I am delighted to have received so much support for my arguments—and agree that it is important to have available in the Library the latest figures for the expenditure of legal aid? The Minister responded to my earlier intervention by saying that the figures that I had cited—the most recent figures available publicly—were not up to date. He said that the Government had more up-to-date figures. In addition to our agreeing about the extension of rights of audience and concerns about personal injury, does the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that the Government have a duty to share up-to-date legal aid figures with the rest of us? Such information should not be retained to inform just the Minister's responses.
  Mr. Hoon: I just shared it.
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews: I agree with the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins). However, it is not just a question of sharing the figures. Simply saying that the Government believe the figure is 7 per cent., does not amount to revealing the source of their figures. The hon. Gentleman and I have cited figures from the Legal Aid Board. Our figures are nearly identical—I am not sure who is correct—and they point to a 1.5 per cent. increase in legal aid expenditure compared with a 3.3 per cent. inflation rate. They reveal a significant increase in the assistance provided under legal aid in the past two years. Any suggestion that the legal aid fund is not under control is not borne out by Legal Aid Board figures. If there are other figures or other research, I would like to see them.
  The Minister nods, but he will not like my next point. He cited figures that showed a vast increase in legal aid expenditure between 1991 and 1996, when it was brought under control. That increase was due largely to the recession into which we were plunged by the Conservative Government as people who were affected by that recession made demands on the legal aid fund. There were several other factors, such as the setting up of the Serious Fraud Office, which vastly increased costs in criminal legal aid. The statistics do not provide any succinct or reasonable basis for removing legal aid from the highly meritorious cases to which I have referred.
  Mr. Linton: Will my hon. and learned Friend explain why, if legal aid cases have a 91 per cent. success rate, it would be an imposition to expect a case to have a 75 per cent. success rate before it was given a conditional fee agreement?
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews: A 75 per cent. success rate does not apply to a conditional fee agreement, which can be taken out in respect of any case by any lawyer who is prepared to do so on the basis of an uplift. One of the problems is that the client has to rely entirely on the lawyer to tell him what kind of case he has. The lawyer may say that he wants a 100 per cent. uplift. There are well-known anecdotal cases of lawyers operating on a

  265
  blanket 70 per cent. uplift on the basis that every case is a bit dodgy so one may as well immediately equalise the risk.
  In response to my hon. Friend's question, one may ask the rhetorical question: why, if legal aid cases enjoy such a high success rate, shou d they not be effectively privatised? That is what the measure would do, by pushing the burden of the welfare state on to solicitors and insurance companies. The answer is simple. First, as I have just said, we would be reliant on an imperfect system—the advice that is given within a contingency fee system.
  The second point—this is the answer to the question about reverse selection asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore)—relates to the funding of disbursements. When people with no money ask a solicitor to take a case, it is taken on a no win, no fee basis, and the disbursements for employing experts and counsel, if that is necessary, have to be borne by the solicitor. People who are injured or disabled will, without a shadow of a doubt, have to trail the coat of their respective damages from solicitor to solicitor until they find one with the right portfolio of risk. If they are lucky enough to find one, they must hope that he is a good one.
  I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) that if one took that service and superimposed it on the national health service, with the concept that those who are injured and disabled and require the services of the state have to go from doctor to doctor until they find someone who is commercially able to take their case, there would rightly be outrage. The circumstances that I have described are in no way different.
  Mr. Mullin: Returning to uplift, my hon. and learned Friend said that there are lawyers taking a 100 per cent. uplift. No doubt there are such lawyers, but he has read—indeed, he drew it to my attention—the Policy Studies Institute document, "The Price of Success", which has analysed conditional fee cases. The document says:
  "The average uplift is 43 per cent. The Law Society's voluntary cap which prevents more than 25 per cent. of damages being eaten up by fees has become virtually standard."
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews: My hon. Friend is right—a 25 per cent. voluntary cap on fees is imposed by the Law Society and that has undoubtedly been working. At the time of the PSI report, the 43 per cent. uplift was also working. If my hon. Friend reads on, he will see that report clearly says that, because of the extremely limited number of cases that the PSI was able to consider, it is far too early to draw any conclusions about the validity of conditional fee agreements. I have repeatedly drawn to the attention of my hon. Friends the fact that there is no research. The emphatic conclusion of the PSI report, which 1 drew to my hon. Friend's attention, was that no policy could be based on its findings.
  The Government do not have the necessary research on how the 20,000 cases based on conditional fee agreements have operated. Nor do they have any significant research on whether the insurance industry will flood in to pick up cases that were part of the welfare state, as the Government hope that insurers, as well as solicitors, will
  266
  do. All the evidence, including that from insurers themselves, suggests that they will not flood in to take on those cases.
  An article in The Lawyer of 1 February was headlined, "Insurers to cherry-pick low risk legal aid cases", and said that
  "legal insurers predict a slimming down of the number of cases receiving funding, rather than greater access to justice.
  'There's no question about it. The insurers will be more selective' says Christine Malkin, director of Amicus Legal.
  Anthony Mowatt of Keystone Legal Benefits, meanwhile, likens potential cases to a big pie, part of which insurers will find unappetising. 'One clump will be chucked in the bin and we will all be fighting over what's left," he says."
  As if that was not ringing enough, the article continues:
  "Derri-Ann Clark of Saturn Professional Risks is more concise: 'It's got to cut down access to justice for a number of people. There are occasions when you'd like to help someone but you can't take the risk.'"
  That is the message which is coming loud and clear from the insurance industry. If the Bill is passed, each year we shall subject 75,000 cases of the poorest and most disabled people to the circumstances that have been projected.
  All I ask of the Government is that they accept an extremely limited amendment to the Bill to retain legal aid for personal injuries cases involving children, people who are reliant on benefits or pensions and those who are disabled within the definition of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. That is not a great deal to ask. It would safeguard the poorest in society. If, in five years, it appeared that the system of conditional fees was otherwise working like a dream, the Government could return to Parliament and say that they were justified in taking that risk to give the poorest in society a break. At the moment, however, I have to say that many hon. Members did not come to the House to remove that protection of the welfare state from the poorest people in it.
  There will be beneficiaries of the Bill. I repeat that I hold no brief for lawyers and I do not make my remarks on the basis that the measure will impoverish lawyers—quite the reverse. The Government's proposals will enrich many lawyers who are awaiting conditional fee agreements. There will be two types: one will be absolutely admirable and the other will be absolutely not admirable. The first type includes large firms, which are represented in the House. They will, of course, take on clients because they have an enormous portfolio of cases and have the ability to churn out cases and take on the portfolio of risk. They will accept a limited number of cases from the myriad legal aid solicitors who are at present responsible for operating, on the level of the high street, what I hope I have demonstrated is an excellent system.
  The other lawyers who will, unhappily, benefit from the Bill are the charlatans. They will be prepared to accept, on conditional fee agreements, the cases of people who would otherwise have got legal aid. They will churn out those cases, settle them or push them when they should not be pushed, depending on how much it suits their commercial need. I do not know a single concerned lawyer in personal injury litigation, working for a large firm, who does not perceive those risks to be real and completely unacceptable.

  267
  My hon. Friend the Minister has repeatedly said that he receives letters. I have received many letters from some of the best and most radical firms of solicitors who deal with those cases, as well as those that involve a high degree of public service, and they are unanimous that the Government's proposals should be rejected.
  I shall end on an entirely parochial note. The Chatham dockyard is in my constituency. It is well known that, year after year, many cases of industrial disease, including leukaemia and cancers, are emerging. It is almost certain that those cases result from nuclear exposure at the dockyard during the 1980s. I simply ask my hon. Friend the Minister, will those cases be covered by any exception in the Bill? At the moment, they are not. At the moment, those people would have a right—
  Mr. Dismore: Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union.
  Mr. Marshall£;ws: No, they do not have trade union backing, and my hon. Friend knows perfectly well why—hey were working in a dockyard.
  If such cases do not have trade union backing, will they be able to obtain legal aid? I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to give me that answer.
  6 pm
  Mr. John Burnett: The reaction of many people who are attending today's debate is that it could be just another occasion when lawyers seek to defend their vested interests and restrictive practices. Many Members who are not lawyers will come to this place with, at the back of their mind, the thought, "Och, it is time to zip up your pockets, because the lawyers want to retain the status quo, which suits them well." I hope that, in my speech, I shall disabuse the House of those ideas, explain why I think that much of the Bill is misguided, and suggest constructively what can be doneto change the Bill and genuinely to improve access to justice without compromising the integrity of our legal system.
  I must declare an interest. I am still a partner in a firm of solicitors, but I can tell the House that I shall be leaving my firm in the near future.
  On 28 July 1998, hon. Members debated in Committee the draft Conditional Fee Agreements Order 1998. The Government are intent on solving what they perceive to be the budgetary problem of legal aid by greatly extending conditional fee agreements and making other changes. However, before I discuss conditional fee agreements—no fee—like to be the first to agree with the Government that changes need to be made to legal aid, and that a preferable system should be introduced to open up justice to middle-income Britain.
  Regarding legal aid, there are areas where change should and must be made, dealing first with the merits test. It is beyond me how the merits of a case are gauged, and I can illustrate that by taking the example of two cases.
  In one case, a constituent, the defendant, sold a business many years ago. The plaintiff claimed that he had not got what he paid for. Not only did the plaintiff get legal aid in respect of the first case before a judge, which he lost, and for the second case before another judge, on the same
  268
  facts for the same claim, which he also lost, but he has now been given legal aid again, for an appeal. It is beyond me how that individual was granted legal aid for the third time, let alone the second. The state is effectively funding this case for the third time, while the defendant, who does not qualify for legal aid, has run out of money to hire a lawyer to defend him and must now do it himself.
  The scandal is that that defendant has no hope of recovering the costs that he incurred earlier, despite the fact that he has won twice. That is an unfair element of the existing legal aid system. Time and again, the non legally aided party settles what are sometimes the most unmeritorious cases, simply because he is on a hiding to nothing. If he wins, he still loses his own costs and he may as well buy off the other party in respect of that sum in any event, right at the start.
  Another case, from the opposite end of the spectrum, concerns a young girl with devoted and caring parents, who has suffered, and still suffers, from an illness that renders her weak and emaciated. She had treatment and was abused by a person who was supposed to be treating her. Omitting for a moment the criminal aspects of the matter, it is proving very difficult indeed to get legal aid for that person, whose condition has been severely exacerbated by the professional who was there to look after her. That is despite the fact that there is evidence in writing from two other professional people to the effect that they saw the young girl being subjected to inappropriate treatment, and the fact that the individual concerned was suspended some time ago in an internal inquiry that has been completed not in respect of the case of this particular girl but in respect of the case of two other girls subjected to similar treatment.
  There is every good reason to look into how the Legal Aid Board measures the merits of the case, and I am glad to note that the Bill starts to address that problem. I believe that significant savings could be made if the right experts were available to measure merits on the basis that I have just outlined, and if the people with the right expertise were available to look into the means of applicants for legal aid. Subject to safeguards, 1 welcome the fact that the Bill contains provisions that will assist in more accurately measuring the applicants' means. I am convinced that there are savings to be made there, too.
  The Government are providing that civil legal aid is to be administered through the community legal service. That will involve contracting and franchising. It will draw in citizens advice bureaux, independent advice centres and law centres—alled not-for-profit sector. I am delighted that the not-for-profit sector is now to be recognised, and I hope that it gets the funding that it deserves. Many of us are worried about how the system of contracting will operate, especially in rural and remote areas.
  I believe that the idea behind franchising and contracting is sound. On 27 January 1999, we debated in Committee the draft Legal Aid (Prescribed Panels) Regulations 1998. I said then that specialisation should be encouraged, and I believe that it should be encouraged for those who seek to obtain contracts. Contracting will assist in monitoring standards and in fighting fraud— regrettably, there is fraud among a few solicitors. It should ensure that better value for money is obtained for the public purse.

  269
  What horrifies me is that the Government envisage only about 3,000 of what they inelegantly describe as outlets. There are now approximately 10,600 outlets for legal aid. I remind the House that it takes two to litigate, and that each party must be separately represented. There should be an element of choice. Three thousand outlets is simply inadequate, especially taking into account the needs of rural areas and rural towns. There will be large areas with no access and, effectively, no choice.
  I should like to draw the House's attention to the matter of open-ended costs—another aspect where I believe that there is potential for containment of legal aid expenditure. Considerable work has been done by the Bar, the solicitors' profession and certain experts on a system of graduated and integrated fees.
  In the past, some senior QCs have been paid inordinately large sums for certain well-publicised legal aid cases. It is not just the Bill that has precipitated a rethink of fees, especially legal fees; that has been going on for some time. The Lord Chancellor's Department now has full details of what is proposed by the Bar, the solicitors' profession and certain experts for a system of fixed, graduated fees, which are integrated. That means that clients, and the Legal Aid Board when granting a certificate, will not be signing a blank cheque. They will know what they are in for financially, except in the most unusual cases. That is an another area where money could and should be saved.
  I have described some of the ways in which the existing legal aid system may be altered for the better—ways in which money can be saved and better targeted. Conditional fee agreements are the Government's proposed means for widening access to justice to middle-income Britain, but, as I have said in previous debates, they are deeply flawed in so far as they pitch the interests of the client against those of the lawyer. The temptation for the lawyer will always be to settle and get his money and his uplift instead of maximising his client's claim.
  In any event, conditional fees cannot be made to work without after-the-event insurance covering defence costs, and there is no real sign yet that the insurance cover is available, and at what cost and on what terms. It is simply no good for the Minister to say that it is up to the market to come up with appropriate policies.
  Before conditional fees are extended, the least that the Government can do is satisfy the House that insurance cover is available at a reasonable charge, and not with unduly restrictive terms and conditions. I warn the Government that premiums in relation to personal injury cases in which the prospect of success is over 90 per cent. have doubled in the past year. We can also be certain that that form of insurance will involve a significant cost, and that conflicts of interest between clients and lawyers will be as nothing when insurance companies come into the proceedings. They will dictate the terms; they will dictate the conditions; and they will dictate the settlement.
  I also believe that only the very best cases will be taken on the basis of conditional fee agreements. Anyone with any knowledge or experience of litigation will know that only when proceedings progress is it possible to gauge the merits of a case. In many meritorious cases, justice will
  270
  be denied and individuals will be denied justice. The opportunities and temptations for lawyers to cut corners and not make proper disclosure will be abundant.
  I am particularly disappointed that the Government have not seen fit to do far more work on the contingency legal aid fund. I believe that, under that system, access to justice will be truly opened to middle-income Britons and others. The integrity of the law can be retained if a lawyer has at heart not his own interests, but those of justice and his client. The Bill contains a tepid reference to that form of funding, which might be taken up in the near future. That, as I say, is disappointing.
  The Bill contains serious flaws. Time and again, despite concessions made on clause 4 in the other place, it arrogates to the Lord Chancellor, effectively, powers to dominate and run the legal professions. Under the present arrangements, the Lord Chancellor must carry others with him. For example, in respect of the rights to conduct litigation, he must carry with him four designated judges: the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, the President of the Family Division and the Vice-Chancellor. The Bill, however, requires him merely to consult and then decide.
  Time and again, the Bill allows the Lord Chancellor to override his consultees and, effectively, make decisions himself. The Lord Chancellor straddles all three pillars of our constitution: the Executive, the legislature and the judiciary. His office is a contradiction of the doctrine of separation of powers. Once the Bill has been passed, there will be nothing to inhibit or check the Lord Chancellor in his complete dominance of the professions, the conduct of litigation and the funding and control of the legal services commission. I hope that Labour Members will give careful consideration to that aspect in particular before voting on the merits of the Bill. It constitutes a major erosion of the independence of the legal professions, and the Minister with absolute control will be in the other place.
  During the last Session of Parliament, an early-day motion signed by more than 100 Members of Parliament called for an independent Department of Justice, with the responsible Secretary of State accountable to the House of Commons. It is a shame that the Government have not seen fit to curb the powers of the Lord Chancellor, and to make the office more accountable. Instead, the Lord Chancellor is to have even greater power.
  Mr. Keith Vaz: Surely an affirmative resolution of Parliament, not just a decision by the Lord Chancellor, will ensure that certain other resolutions are passed.
  Mr. Burnett: Regrettably, the Lord Chancellor's powers under the Bill are not all so circumscribed. My point is that there should be a Minister who is accountable to this House of Commons, rather than an unelected individual in the other House.
  Mr. Garnier: The point raised so eloquently by the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) was also raised in the other place. It was dealt with effectively by peers representing the Liberal Democrats and the official Opposition, and by Cross Benchers, who pointed out to the Government—if the Government had not already realised—that the affirmative resolution procedure is

  271
  never overturned by the House of Lords and, given this lot's majority of 179, will not even be considered sensibly in the Commons, either on the Floor of the House or in Committee. The comfort that the hon. Gentleman takes from the affirmative resolution procedure is not justified in the current circumstances.
  Mr. Burnett: I am afraid that the hon. and learned Gentleman's point is germane to virtually every piece of legislation that is dealt with on the Floor of the House. The Government have an overwhelming majority, which is regrettable—but I hope that, having considered some of the matters in the Bill and some of the issues that I have raised, Labour Members will think again before traipsing into the Lobby tonight.
  Another serious flaw in the Bill is the introduction of what could be described as a state defender system. The state should not be both prosecutor and defender. Of course it is for the state to be the prosecutor, but it should not be the defender as well. To any impartial observer, that conflict of interest is stark and obvious. A defendant accused of a crime has the vast power of the state ranged against him. He is alone, and seeks impartial and independent counsel, advice and protection. Defendants will want to turn to a lawyer who is wholly independent of the vast apparatus of the state that is being mobilised against them.
  In another place, a purposes clause was inserted into the Bill, which the Lord Chancellor has derided as a gimmick. The clause may not have been perfectly drafted, and there is scope for amendments to it; but what is wrong with a clause that enshrines the Government's stated aims and objectives? The Government agree that there should be access to legal services, that such access should not be impaired by disability or other inaccessibility and that high-quality legal services should be available to the legally aided litigant, rather than being the preserve of the wealthy. Those are the aims that the Government say they espouse; what objection can they possibly have to the enshrining of their aims in a purposes clause?
  On the matter of accessibility and disability, I consider it particularly mean and niggardly of the Government to abolish all legal aid for personal injury claims. I believe that they are considering retaining legal aid for disabled and vulnerable groups. I wait to hear from the Minister the Government's exact proposals in respect of legal aid relating to personal injury, and what guarantees they propose for disabled people, minors and other vulnerable groups.
  I referred earlier to the huge extension of the Lord Chancellor's powers. Nowhere is that clearer than in the area of finance. Effectively, civil legal aid is now to be such sum as the Lord Chancellor deems fit, and for such cases as the Lord Chancellor deems appropriate after the provision of funding for the criminal defence service. It is possible that the funding for the criminal defence service will completely squeeze out the funding for the community legal service. That is very unsatisfactory: it could mean that many hundreds of thousands of our countrymen, if not more, will be without any remedy for wrongdoing. Their whole lives could be jeopardised by the decision. I ask the Minister to reconsider the funding proposals, and to ensure that there is not only proper and adequate funding for advice and representation for defence in criminal proceedings, but an adequate and separate fund for civil matters.
  272
  Finally, let me mention one or two surprising omissions from the Bill. I believe I heard the Lord Chancellor say on the "Today" programme on Saturday 20 March that the Government were considering the establishment of a judicial appointments commission. Why is that not in the Bill? I have raised the matter in the House in the past, and have received stonewalling replies. We want a more open and transparent system, not just for the appointment of judges but for other senior legal appointments. With the incorporation of the European convention on human rights and the vast growth in administrative law and judicial review, judges will more and more frequently make decisions that can be described as political. The background, affiliations and views of judges should be in the public domain. I do not believe that judges have anything to fear from that.
  One of the inequities of the present legal aid system is that successful non legally aided parties can virtually never recover their costs. As I said earlier, that puts such parties in an appalling position. Time and again, legally aided litigants with frivolous claims are bought off. Surely the time has come to put parties on the same footing as to costs, whether or not they are legally aided.
  Parts V and VI relate to magistrates courts. If there is one aspect of legal affairs that infuriates hon. Members, it is the arbitrary and peremptory closure of magistrates courts in their constituencies. Hon. Members are right: justice should be done and be seen to be done locally. We shall therefore table an amendment in Committee calling for a presumption to that effect and enabling a local authority affected by the closure of a magistrates court—that means not just the paying authority, which already has this right, but another affected local authority—to appeal any proposal for closure of a magistrates court.
  Finally, the Bill is unlikely to stir great controversy throughout the country. It is an easy Bill for the Government to railroad through two years before a general election. Its consequences, like the measure to tax pension funds, will not be felt for some years. If the Bill is passed, there will be an erosion of standards in the legal profession as it embarks on what will become a US-style contingency fee operation. London, which has hitherto been the preferred place for litigation in international disputes, will cease to hold that pre-eminent position, and individuals will consult their lawyers knowing that the interests of the individual are pitched against those of their lawyers. I hope that the Government will reconsider the Bill. For the reasons that I have given, my hon. Friends and I will vote against it tonight.
  6.22 pm
  Mr. Mark Todd: I hesitate to contribute to the debate. I am not a lawyer, although that might be seen as a qualification rather than a bar to my speaking. When I was younger, my mum and dad both wished me to be a lawyer, and I have often reflected that it might have earned me greater rewards than the choice that I made. There are plenty of advocates of the profession in the Chamber, who will be able to speak much more persuasively than I can on the aspects of the Bill that have already occupied considerable time.
  There is much to commend in the Bill. The major elements are the establishment of a community legal service and the introduction into legal services of contractual relationships and quality assurances. I have

  273
  been exposed long enough—as an ordinary individual and as a Member of Parliament—to the mediocrity that one often finds in legal services to be convinced of the need for change and for a clearer relationship between the Government paying for a service and the quality that that service provides for the citizen. That, I am sure, is one of the goals of the Bill.
  My one hesitation centres on whether the distribution of that service may be tackled in the same way as the distribution of magistrates courts. If it is, I will regret my support for that aspect of the Bill, as the Minister involved has already sanctioned the closure of a magistrates court in my constituency and judged that local justice will be served adequately despite that. Obviously, I would be concerned if he took the same view about the availability of quality legal advice in my area.
  I welcome the news of the Government's amendments on the operation of the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors. That is a sensible step, which will have my full support, as will the greater choice of advocacy arrangements that should be available. I have heard the remarks about the closed shop of the legal profession. I would welcome the opening up of opportunities for others to take part in the advocacy process.
  However, I remain hesitant about one aspect of the Bill—the availability of legal aid in cases of personal injury. I would not go as far as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) in my response. That may be partly through ignorance, but it is also partly in the hope that the Government may better explain what they are attempting to do, and may consider more deeply some of the alternative paths to achieve a goal which I largely share.
  The proposals to extend conditional fee arrangements to cover most civil claims, including those for personal injury, are eminently reasonable. I have listened to the argument that the overwhelming majority of cases are won. In commercial terms, that suggests to me that the risks involved are eminently insurable. I see no reason why the bulk of cases dealing with personal injury could not be dealt with through insurance arrangements.
  It has been argued that legal aid spending in this area is good value for money, because the net public cost is so tiny. On one calculation, the net public cost was £35 million in a year, which is a trivial amount in public spending terms. That calculation did not, I think, take full account of the benefit repayments that might have been achieved as well. Nevertheless, I recognise the desire to reduce the scope and focus of legal aid. That should deliver some administrative savings and simplicity in the way in which legal aid is offered, which may be a laudable goal.
  I am doubtful whether all cases currently funded under legal aid can be covered in the way suggested in the Bill. I noted with care the Minister's reference to exceptions where a case of quality might not be properly dealt with through the insurance route, and to the steps that could be taken to deal with that. I shall return to the subject in due course.
  I should first be interested to hear more about the research that has been done on the operation of conditional fee arrangements. That has already been raised in the debate, and the answers have been given
  274
  courteously but have added little to our knowledge of the subject. As far as I am aware, the research to date has been inconclusive and has indicated that there is a risk of gaps appearing in the service available. If there is further information, the Minister could add to our knowledge at the end of the debate.
  Secondly, I should welcome some reassurance that successful cases that have been won with legal aid in the past would have been won under the system introduced under the Bill. I recognise the role of trade unions in this respect. My constituency contains many former mining employees who have gained from the cases relating to emphysema and white finger. In such cases, active trade unions have been able to support individuals and demonstrate the liability of the company for which those people worked.
  However, that does not always apply in cases of industrial injury. I listened to the words of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway who has left his seat—or, rather, has moved from his seat to another location. He cautioned that that may not always be true, and I share his concern that cases of industrial injury should be pursued with vigour and with the hope of success under the provisions of the Bill. I would welcome reassurance of that.
  Thirdly, I am worried that some cases with extremely high preliminary costs may not be satisfactorily covered. A constituent of mine who is a specialist in this area quotes an example of a constituent who was knocked down in a road accident by an uninsured driver and suffered catastrophic injuries. There were no witnesses. Assembling a viable case cost about £50,000 before it reached court and, eventually, satisfactory settlement.
  That is a major cash-flow burden for a partnership. The Government need to explain how a partnership can meet the sudden arrival of such a burden. Many practices would not be able to absorb such a substantial bill and would have to turn the case away. Even if the case was of high quality, the costs of taking on expert and medical advice would be beyond the means of the practice and would be a bar on its taking on and supporting the case. The cost of the case that I have cited was probably not exceptional. There must be many others where another nought could be added to the figure. Such a sum would deter even the most substantial businesses. The likelihood of the case's having a long gestation and its taking some time to recover the money would also be a deterrent.
  That could apply in cases requiring proof of industrial diseases. We have seen how long it took to reach a conclusion in cases involving emphysema and white finger. Those cases were covered by trade union involvement, but a normal solicitors practice may not be able to undertake such a burden. Discretion is available to the Lord Chancellor. I listened carefully to the words of my hon. Friend the Minister on that. I have some democratic concerns about that discretion being left solely to the Lord Chancellor. The coverage of that discretion and how it might be applied has also not been explained—at least not to me. I would welcome clarification on that. I might well be satisfied if it were clear that there was a way of catering for exceptions that dealt with my concerns.
  An insurer has the power to insist on a particular lawyer being used in a case. There may be merit in advising a client to avoid a particular solicitor who does not have the

  275
  necessary expertise for a case, but I have some concerns that the bias of insurers may warp the marketplace between competent firms who are able to represent a case. People who are well able to support a client may be ruled out because they do not appear on an insurer's list of approved solicitors.
  I hope that the Government will accept my constructive concerns about the Bill. I look forward to the comments of my hon. Friend the Solicitor-General, who may be able to explain the Government's intentions a little further and reassure me about them.
  6.33 pm
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: It is a pleasure to participate in the debate, particularly because the issue was in fundamental need of being addressed. I declare my interest as a practising member of the Bar. I am particularly involved in personal injury and criminal law relating mainly to health and safety. I have said for some time that difficult issues in relation to access to justice have to be faced, and that change and amelioration are required to provide an efficient service. The Government deserve to be commended for their willingness to tackle the issue. I profoundly believe that if it is tackled properly and if we nudge the system in the right direction, with radical changes if they are required, we can have an efficient system of access to justice for the next century, continuing a fine tradition that has stood this country in good stead internationally for a long time.
  I ask the House's indulgence while I dwell for a moment on principles. There is a great tendency to criticise lawyers and I dare say that such criticism is often justified. We often hear criticism in the House of our system of justice. The system of justice in this country, as anywhere else, is fallible, because it is a human system. Perfection is not achievable; we can only try to do our best. However, when we try to change the system, we would do well to avoid throwing the baby out with the bath water.
  I have heard a continuous stream of praise from foreign countries for the way in which our system of justice operates. I have particular knowledge of and close associations with one foreign country—a near neighbour of ours. A number of nuggets stand out in that praise. Our system of justice and those who administer it are seen to have high standards of conduct and probity. However—this is the matter that the Government are right to address—standards of efficiency are not necessarily so high. The independence of our system of justice is also central to the respect that it is accorded. The independence of the judiciary and the lack of compartmentalisation of those who serve in the justice system are a matter of wonder to many who come from abroad. It is a central feature of our criminal justice system that lawyers are interchangeable and we have steered well clear of a public prosecutor system for advocacy in courts and of public defendants. The House would do well to bear in mind the fact that that meets with considerable praise and is compared favourably with countries that have such systems.
  When we address the need for change in our system of access to justice, I am concerned to preserve what is good, while enabling change to meet the undoubted financial constraints that are placed on the system. There has been exponential growth in the funding of legal services,
  276
  particularly legal aid, over the past 25 years. It is a point of some pride that most of that growth has occurred under a Conservative Government. The figure rose from less than £100 million in 1979 to £1,000 million 11 years later. That hardly reflects a lack of concern from that Government about the principles of justice.
  At the opening of Maidstone Crown court by Her Majesty the Queen, the point was made that the dispensation of justice is the original social service provided by the state. It is the basic contract by which people subordinate themselves to the state, in return for being provided with protection. It is, therefore, of particular importance that people should not be excluded from the system. One hundred years ago, a High Court judge said that justice was open to all, like the Ritz hotel. He was making the perfectly proper point that justice was for those who could afford it. We have come a long way in the past century, but I am troubled that some of the measures in the Bill would result in our turning our backs on the basic principle of access to justice for all.
  I do not want to repeat the speeches that have already been made, but I should like to refer to some of the key issues in the Bill. The first, spoken about so eloquently by the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) and others, is legal aid, the introduction of conditional fee agreements, their substitution for legal aid and the removal of legal aid from those who were previously entitled to enjoy it. From my experience as a practitioner, I know of the number of people who have fallen outside the legal aid net and therefore have found litigation beyond their means, but trying to solve that problem by removing a new raft of people from access to justice is a peculiar way to go about it.
  Much has been said about personal injury. There is no doubt—the reasons have been properly spelled out—that, because personal injury often involves being maimed and disabled, it is of particular importance that people should be able to obtain compensation. I have no doubt that, under the legislation as it is drafted and under the rules as they will be introduced, many people with valid claims will be deprived of access to justice and of success in relation to those claims.
  Under the legal aid system, personal injury legal aid has been one of the most successful sectors in terms of good results—I think that 91 per cent. was the figure quoted—so why has that sector been chosen as the one to be deprived of all access to legal aid? It beats me. It is ridiculous when the service is a small component of the total legal aid bill and the results have been so successful. There seems to be some hint of movement on that point. I hope that, in Committee, the Government will consider moving some way towards ensuring that the most vulnerable in society are still provided with access to legal aid.
  Another issue on legal aid has not been touched on. There seems to be a general assumption, which I find curious, that just because certain issues do not involve personal injury and do not fall within the restricted categories that will be laid down in clause 29, the people affected should also be deprived of legal aid. Indeed, I understand the instruments to carry that out have already been drafted and are awaiting the passage of the Bill.
  I am the first to accept that much litigation concerns commercial issues, where people may reasonably be required to make sound value judgments and where they

  277
  may have the funds necessary to fund their own litigation—classic areas where conditional fee agreements might work—but, as time goes on, legal aid will be withdrawn from many categories of litigation that are outside personal injury. The moment a case emerges, people will realise that they deserve support.
  I give one example. There is much litigation concerning property rights. As I have experienced as a lawyer and an advocate—it has happened since the middle ages—frequently, the rich seek to assert property rights on those who cannot afford to litigate. The disputes involve rights of way and boundaries, and often concern people who have very limited means. Often, the redress that they seek is not damages, but an injunction, or some other form of protection against those who try to bully them. Much of that still goes on.
  Under the legislation, soon, those people, however deserving their claim, will no longer be eligible for legal aid in any shape or form. Such litigants or potential litigants will not be able to get a conditional fee agreement. They will be deprived of access to justice. Hon. Members will find their postbags starting to fill with letters from those who, just as in the 19th century and earlier, are saying, "I have no access to justice. I cannot afford it. I have no ready money and no one is prepared to help me." That is scandalous, but it is one of the possible and likely consequences of the legislation, unless the rules, when they are introduced, make allowance and contingency for such possibilities. I do not believe that they will, because the Government appear to be embarked on a blanket approach. I hope that they are not, but it is worth pondering these matters. Personal injury on its own may be the classic example, but there are others.
  Much has been said in general praise—the one point that has attracted praise—of the community legal service that is to be set up under the Bill. I have nothing against a community legal service—indeed, I welcome it…x2014;but, first, it will have to be properly funded. If one looks at the way in which that funding will occur, one must have serious doubts about whether sufficient money will be available.
  There is a profound irony about the matter. In the past, community legal aid services were provided throughout the country by the high street solicitor. Indeed, one of the features of this country was that it had such a ready availability of legal services. I see the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) shake his head. I am mindful of the fact that the distribution could at times be sporadic, but when the green form scheme was working and when many high street solicitors had not lost their main crust of bread through the conveyancing monopoly, quite a large number were around to provide that service. The irony is that, having gradually started to reduce their number, we are producing a new service that is equally funded by the state to substitute for it. I hope that it provides an adequate service, but the fate of the poor old high street solicitor, who was uniquely dependent on state subsidy through the legal aid fund and other methods, does not bode particularly well.
  I have served on the management committee of a law centre in Hammersmith. I am aware of the major contribution that the service can make, but the funding will have to be there, or this part of the Bill is mere puff.
  278
  I come to what troubles me most: the criminal defence service. That was where I cut my teeth in my career as a barrister. I started out at the Bar as a circuit practitioner, practising particularly in Kent, which had a reputation for its Bar mess, where people met, spoke, interchanged ideas and practised. It was held up as a model of its kind.
  The central feature of the mess was the interchangeability of the advocates' functions. On Monday, one would be prosecuting and, on Tuesday, defending. That could go on. One would be against different ranges of opponents, but the body of advocates was held together by high standards of professional conduct. Professional conduct, especially in matters relating to criminal defence and prosecution work, is central to maintaining confidence in the administration of justice.
  With the introduction of the duty solicitor, individuals were often anxious. How right the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) was when he mentioned the loneliness of those who are caught up in the criminal justice system. They require reassurance from independent practitioners. I am dubious about the whole system of the state prosecution service that is rapidly developing. Equally, we are going down the wrong road in seeking to provide a criminal defence service. It will undoubtedly be under financial constraints. I share entirely the view that has been expressed that pressure will be placed on defendants by salaried lawyers about the way in which they are represented.
  Let me remind the House about countries where such systems have operated. I recall visiting the Soviet Union in the early 1990s when it was turning into Russia. I was struck by the total lack of status of the members of the legal profession whom I met. They were mere ciphers and cogs in the state machine and there was absolutely no confidence in their professional ability or integrity. They were conscious of that and sought to visit Britain to see how our system operated. Yet now we are going precisely in that direction.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: My hon. Friend is making a most interesting speech. He mentioned Russia, but he also knows a great deal about France. In no way would I equate France with Russia and I have the highest regard for French advocates. However, in the context of what he is saying, does he agree that the French system is far more limited than ours in respect of defending people accused of criminal offences, and that our system is in grave danger shrinking in an area where France is seeking to expand?
  Mr. Grieve: I agree entirely with my right hon. and learned Friend. I shall return to that point at the end of my speech when I shall refer to the curious drift in respect of our entire legal system, which is underpinned by the Human Rights Act 1998. He is absolutely right to say that other countries have been trying to break out of the proposed system. Countries with inquisitorial systems have always given a lowlier position to the advocate than we have. I believe that our adversarial system of justice has much to commend it, yet it will be unsustainable when the Government's proposals come into effect.
  Mr. Garnier: Is my hon. Friend not also aware that in the United States, which has a system that is quite similar

  279
  to ours, but has a public defender system, the chief justice of the Supreme Court has warned us against following the American path?
  Mr. Grieve: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend and I am aware of that. I remember back in the 1980s a number of American lawyers who had come here on exchange visits making that point. Indeed, I recall an American chief justice making that point 10 years ago and praising the independence and professional integrity of the legal profession here. That brings me to my next issue, which concerns rights of audience and on which I half support the Government and half do not.
  I recall a discussion in my inn of court eight years ago when the issue of rights of audience first came up. I took the same view then as I do now. Although there are many benefits of having a Bar that is separate from the solicitors' profession, there is absolutely no justification for denying rights of audience to those who are qualified to exercise them. I have taken that view for a long time and I stand by it now. Therefore, subject to the comments that I made about salaried employees within state defence systems, I have no objection to allowing rights of audience for solicitors and barristers to grow to a parity. I take the view that they are different kinds of advocate. However, if we are going down that road, we need common standards of professional control and there is nothing whatsoever about that in the Bill.
  If we seek to develop a system where advocacy is a separate discipline within the legal profession—and I believe that is the correct way to proceed—requiring high standards of probity and conduct as well as competence, as the administration of justice in the courts is impossible without them, there must be common professional standards and a common professional body to assert those standards. The Bill makes no mention of that and we will end up with a hotchpotch.
  Jumping back to the issue of conditional fee agreements, it would be wise for the Government to work with the grain. There is no point in putting temptation in people's way. The point was made about disclosure. If one is entitled to a 70 or 100 per cent. uplift on a conditional fee agreement, the temptation not to disclose a document that appears two days before the trial because it scuppers one's client's case becomes considerable. We should try to work with human nature instead of going against it. However, that does not alter the fact that we need good common professional standards for advocates.
  The hon. Member for South Derbyshire welcomed the extension of rights of audience because it allowed more people into the business of appearing in court. I agree, but, just as I would not wish to deduce from that that all professional standards should disappear and that there should be a free-for-all, it must be accepted—and the Government seem half to accept it—that those who practise in court require certain aptitudes and qualifications. It is like being a surgeon rather than a physician. The sooner we deal with that problem the better. If we are to have a core of advocates drawn from the Bar and from the solicitors' profession, it must be addressed. The Bill's failure to do so is another reason why it appears to be a hotchpotch.
  I do not wish to take up too much of the House's time, but I want to raise just a couple of other matters. The Bill includes an interesting provision—which I touched on in
  280
  the question that I raised with the Minister—concerning the transfer of powers from the police to the courts in respect of the enforcement of fines, defaulters and arrest warrants. I am sure that that is beneficial. As the Minister knows, the police are so overburdened that they pick up warrants for arrest from a magistrates court only when they are picking up a defendant for a completely different offence. They do not have time to seek people out.
  I entirely endorse that change, but it seems to be another matter on which there is not joined-up thinking on the part of the Government as the people who will be asked to carry out those duties are effectively the old certificated bailiffs—the court officers. Although they have powers of arrest, if a defendant resists, they have to let him go—nor can they search him.
  If we are to pass such a heavy responsibility to people working outside the police force, it will be necessary to consider what powers they should have. If we are to give them those powers, we must also consider the civil liberties angle. The Bill simply does not address the issue. It is a classic example of the Government saying, "There is a problem here, so we shall simply toss it into another basket". Unless those who are given the responsibility of implementing that part of the Bill have the necessary powers, and a system of control to do so efficiently and in accordance with people's civic rights, there will be problems. I hope that the matter will be addressed in Committee.
  Finally let me turn to the point that I half made to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) and which causes me concern. Last year, it was my pleasure to participate in the debates on the Human Rights Bill. As is well known in the House, I took the view that the Government were right to incorporate the European convention on human rights. However, since incorporation, I have noticed in various utterances of the Home Secretary—for instance, in respect of the legislation that we passed last year after the Omagh bombing—that far from the incorporation of the European convention being a baseline on which we would try to build, accepting that we might fall short in some areas, but overachieve in others, it is now being used as a delicious mantra that is stuck on the front of every Bill to justify all sorts of actions, many of which we would never have tolerated previously. That is not how I should like to see the Human Rights Act 1998 work.
  When one considers this legislation and asks the question, "Looking at it in the round, will the human rights of the citizens of England and Wales"—I cannot speak for Scotland and the clauses applying to it—"be enhanced by it?", the answer is wholly and compellingly negative. Until someone can persuade me that we can do better than that, I cannot give the Bill my support.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps it would be convenient for hon. Members to be reminded that the 15-minute time limit on Back-Bench speeches operates from now until 9 pm.
  7 pm
  Mr. Keith Vaz: I, too, should declare my interest—I am a member of the Bar, but do not practise. Some may say that I am not good enough to get any work, but I always admire those hon. Members who are able to have a career as a Member of Parliament and

  281
  also to practise at the Bar or as a solicitor. I find this job so time consuming that I do not have time to do anything else.
  Before I was a member of the Bar, I was a solicitor. I spent three months in private practice. I did not last very long because I forgot to bill clients. The basis of being in the private sector is sending out bills; otherwise, one's principal cannot pay one. Therefore, my very nice principal, John Gittens, suggested that I should go into local government—where I did not have to charge people for my services. I stayed there for two years, and then worked in a law centre in Leicester, which I shall mention a little later in my speech. I therefore do not have the dynastic pedigree of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), who was not only a banister but the son of a silk.
  I welcome the Bill, and agree with the Minister of State that it is a landmark piece of legislation and something of which we can all be proud. It continues along the route that the Lord Chancellor set for himself, from 1 May 1997, when he decided that he would be a reforming Lord Chancellor who was prepared to accept the integrity of our legal system—acknowledging that there were problems with it, but also bringing it up to date. Therefore, in that sense, the Bill is totally in keeping with the Government's philosophy.
  I think that we are all proud of our legal system, although, when we hear about miscarriages of justice, we acknowledge that there are problems within it. It will take another Bill, on another day, to deal with all those problems. This Bill is about providing access to justice.
  I was disappointed to note that only two Opposition Members were prepared to debate that issue, but then I saw the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) enter the Chamber—he is, of course, worth 100 of the other Opposition Back Benchers—and knew that my colleague from Leicestershire, the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) was saved.
  Mr. Garnier: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Vaz: I shall not allow interventions, as time is very short and many of my hon. Friends wish to contribute.
  I therefore commend the Lord Chancellor on the Bill. I should also like to say—as there have been comments in the press about his commitment to equal opportunities—that I strongly welcome the way in which he has appointed so many black and Asian silks. He has a record of appointing more silks from the ethnic minority communities than any other Lord Chancellor at this point in office. I thank him for the way in which he has sought to attend so many meetings at which we have addressed the issue of diversity. He is also not afraid to take on the vested interests of the legal profession. Hon. Members, too, should not be afraid to do so, although many of us are from that profession.
  I was astonished to hear the comments of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield on the need for more money for legal aid. He is a new hon. Member. I remember being in opposition, for almost 12 years, when eminent persons—such as the former Attorney-General, the right hon.
  282
  and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell)—were telling the House that there was no more money for legal aid.
  Mr. Grieve: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Vaz: I shall, as I mentioned the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Grieve: I think that the hon. Gentleman misunderstood what I said. Perhaps I expressed myself badly, but I do not think that that is what I said. The point I was making was that the sums that the previous Government were prepared to provide for legal aid rose exponentially. The previous Government cannot be criticised for starving legal aid, because it provided vast sums of cash. I accept—as I did at the start of my speech—that we have reached a crisis point, which is why I said at the outset that I supported the Government's attempts to address the issue.
  Mr. Vaz: We can spend only so much taxpayers' money on legal aid. It is quite right that there should be a cap, and that the money should be focused and given to those members of the profession with expertise in a particular field to represent individuals. That is precisely what the Bill seeks to do—to ensure that the enormous resources in the legal aid budget are properly targeted. Legal aid—the green form—exists not to provide trusts for solicitors and barristers but to allow people to prosecute their cases before the courts of this land.
  I am glad that we are to reform the Legal Aid Board, and should like to pay tribute to the work of Henry Hodge, the deputy chairman of the Legal Aid Board. He has been a breath of fresh air in that organisation. However, I hope that we shall not simply change the organisation's name, but that there will be a new attitude in how the new Legal Services Commission operates.
  Many of my constituents come to my surgery and complain about the time it takes to get the Legal Aid Board to approve legal aid cases. I hope that, in the new-found zeal that we clearly have, we shall ensure that such cases are processed as quickly as possible. I welcome the Government's commitment to prioritising urgent cases, by coding them, which I hope will ensure that the changes bring positive results.
  We want the right lawyers for the right type of work. It is not possible for every single lawyer to be an expert in welfare law, immigration law, disability law and criminal law. There are not many experts in criminal law at Clifford Chance—which may have merged since I last looked at the list—or at Slaughter and May. They are not experts in criminal law. It would therefore be absurd if we simply made criminal legal aid available to every firm of solicitors.
  The Bill seeks to ensure that contracts are issued to those solicitors and members of the Bar who are expert in their field. That will enable better justice—not only better access to justice, but a better quality of justice—and ensure that people are properly represented by those who have an interest in those fields.
  I strongly welcome the establishment of the community legal service. I have always felt that we need to have a much more coherent and cohesive approach in the provision of legal services. I am delighted that the Minister of State has chosen Leicester as one the associate

  283
  pilot schemes for operation of the new community legal service, and believe that the new commission will pull together all the various strands.
  I worry about the possibility that the service may be better in some parts of the country, which have forward-thinking local authorities, and that it may not be so good in other parts of the country. I worry also about the situation in rural areas and constituencies. Perhaps we have to examine that matter much more carefully. Nevertheless, I welcome the commitment to creating a service that is not only national in outlook but deals particularly with local circumstances.
  I commend the work of the citizens advice bureaux and law centres. Some people believe that lawyers are the only ones who can give advice, but that is simply not true. For two years, I worked in the Highfields in Belgrave law centre, in Leicester, and learned everything that I know about immigration law from immigration advisers and workers, who were not legally qualified but understood the working of the law.
  Mr. John M. Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Vaz: I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman has just come into the Chamber and has not listened to the whole debate. We also have a time limit. There are very few Opposition Members in the Chamber, and I am sure that he will want to make his own speech.
  The problem with law centres is not only underfunding but the fact that they are located only in certain areas, in our big cities and big towns. We have to ensure that if we are to provide legal services through organisations such as law centres, they are funded in different parts of the country.
  CABs should be commended. They are composed of voluntary workers who daily go in there and, in some cases, provide complex advice. For a few years, I worked as a volunteer in the CAB in Richmond, in Surrey, when I lived there. The quality of advice given by my co-workers was incredible. The amount of information that came from the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux was amazing. We must ensure that the CABs are part of the system. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, who is nodding, will ensure that that happens.
  Sir Nicholas Lye11: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Vaz: I will not allow interventions because we are on a time limit and a lot of hon. Members wish to speak.
  Sir Nicholas Lye11: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I quite understand the hon. Gentleman cherishing his time but—I say this with all friendliness—will he clarify his position? I understood that he was the parliamentary private secretary to the Law Officers. He is quite entitled to make a speech, and it will be welcomed by Government Front Benchers that he is commending the Bill. However, could we have a clarification of his position?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: May I say two things? First, there is injury time for interventions so that an hon. Member under a time limit is not penalised. Secondly,
  284
  it is entirely up to hon. Members to make their own position clear if that is necessary. There is certainly no rule so far as the Chair is concerned.
  Mr. Vaz: As has been mentioned, the Bill is led by the Lord Chancellor's Department. As the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) says, I am the PPS to the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General. This is not a Bill from our Department.
  Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Vaz: No, I will not.
  I have a problem with the words "criminal defence service," and I think that we should find a new title. It reminds me of the criticism that was used against the Crown Prosecution Service before the dynamic David Calvert-Smith arrived, when it was referred to as the "criminal protection society". The criminal defence service is a service to provide defence for alleged criminals. I know that people do not like the words—which come from the United States—but perhaps the public defender service would be a better title. We need to have people who are expert in defence work, as we have on the prosecution side through the Crown Prosecution Service.
  I support and welcome conditional fees. I saw a film last week called "A Civil Action", starring John Travolta, which was all about conditional fees. As the film was made in Hollywood, the lawyer mortgaged his house, the lights were taken out and the fax machine was sold because he wanted to get to the wire to make sure that the case was dealt with. He won the case, and they settled for $8 million. However, the clients would have liked a better settlement. I support the idea of conditional fees, but we must be wary of the fact that people may settle when they think that they have their fees in order. I am sure that we will look at that.
  There is a challenge for the legal profession. I say to the president of the Law Society, Michael Mathews, and the chairman of the Bar, Dan Brennan, that they need to get their professions in order. There are bad solicitors and bad barristers—as there are bad practitioners in every profession—but it should not be up to Parliament each time to try to draw attention to the fact that there are problems in the professions. I hope that they—both men of integrity and both leaders of their professions—will ensure that something is done to deal with that problem.
  Finally, I commend and echo the words of my noble and learned Friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton, who said on 14 December 1998:
  "I believe that the Bill makes a genuine contribution to making justice more accessible to the general public than it is at the moment."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 December 1998; Vol. 595, c. 1201.]
  I strongly support those views, and I look forward to serving on the Committee, with all the Opposition Members who are present, to debate the matters.
  7.13 pm
  Dr. Lynda Clark: I am conscious that so many hon. Members in the Chamber have experience in England, while I do not. I am

  285
  non-practising member of the English Bar; my practice is entirely in Scotland, and I declare an interest as a practising member of the Scottish Bar.
  I should declare also that I was a member of the Scottish Legal Aid Board and, in that capacity, I tried very hard to deal with some of the practical problems that we saw in trying to administer the legal aid system. We looked at the issues that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) illustrated. I was conscious that in trying to administer the fund, the problem was not in relation to personal injury, but very much in relation to family work; the bill for which, as can be seen from statistics, is astronomic. There seems to be no limit on it.
  I pointed out that if we had legislation, as we do, in terms of divorce that leads to disputes—for example, the fact that we have a system based on irretrievable breakdown on complicated grounds that we have to prove and on which people wish to fight—there is no wonder that we end up with a family law system that is very expensive. One obvious way of reducing the bill would be to give some consideration to our family law, and other law.
  I get very annoyed when lawyers get the blame for complicated legislation when we know full well that it is not lawyers that make the legislation, but this House. Since I entered the House, I have railed at the form of our legislation, which is appalling. We need to consider the way in which we make legislation, so that people can understand it. Perhaps we can then reduce overall costs in relation to lawyers.
  I hope that the House will forgive me if I touch briefly on the Scottish position. I welcome the main changes proposed in clause 27, which extend the possibility of legal aid in Scotland. They give powers to the Secretary of State for Scotland to prescribe certain proceedings for legal aid where representation may be granted without reference to the financial limits. That opens up new possibilities for Scotland, but it is intended to apply to certain categories of work, such as mental health proceedings. However, the possibilities are endless.
  I have not yet heard any hon. Member suggest in the debate that the present system of legal aid funding and delivery is working successfully. We all seem to be agreed that it is not. We have not heard any alternative proposal, and it is plain that dealing with the present system—however one does so—is a difficult task.
  Mr. Burnett: I listed a number of instances of constructive criticism and further steps that could be taken to open up justice to middle-income Britain, for example. I hope that the hon. and learned Member will agree that they were fairly compelling.
  Dr. Clark: My apologies to the hon. Gentleman, but they could not have been that compelling because I cannot remember them. I will read them with interest in Hansard.
  I would not associate myself with some of the anti-lawyer sentiments that I have heard expressed—not so much today, but perhaps in the other place. I do not accept that the inadequacies of the present legal aid system are the responsibility of lawyers. Politicians must take their fair share of the blame. I am not deliberately
  286
  looking at Conservative Members in relation to that, but they did have 20 years or so to try to sort the matter out. Lawyers deserve some credit for trying to fill in some of the gaps and the unmet need. It is lawyers, not politicians, who have done that work, often unfunded, to try to solve the problem.
  Like many who have spoken today, I am a strong supporter of the independence of the legal profession in a democracy. A strong, independent legal profession with expert knowledge that is able and willing to advise and represent citizens—even in the most unpopular causes—is essential. Many lawyers in other regimes, to my great distress, have died, been imprisoned or been ostracised because of their profession.
  Independent expert lawyers who are committed to do their best for their clients in the interests of justice are not to be found only in the arrangements that exist in England and Wales. I hope that the House will bear with me as I mention the Scottish tradition. In Scotland, the tradition has long been that the Crown has prosecuted in the higher courts through advocates depute, who are normally members of the Bar but not necessarily so.
  During the time when they work as advocates depute, they are not free, as in England, to accept any defence instructions. They are entirely employed by Crown prosecution work. They normally do this for a substantial period; usually three years, but sometimes much longer. They are paid a fixed salary, which is not excessive—it is quite low, at approximately £50,000—to cover all the prosecution work that they do. That means that their time as an advocate is entirely taken up with Crown work. If they have any free time, which is rare, they can do civil work. They are not paid per case and they do not have the interchange that is common in England.
  There are problems in the Scottish system, but lack of independence is not one of them. The advocates depute are known for their independence of mind. They are often appointed directly from that position to be sheriffs in the lower court or judges in the Court of Session.
  That model has some interest for the debate. I do not accept that employment per se undermines independence. In any training for lawyers it is important to ensure that the principle of independence and the acknowledgement of the interests of justice are bitten into their souls. I accept that it is important to encourage lawyers to get the widest possible experience and I certainly would not support a system whereby one spends one's whole life prosecuting or indeed defending. It is important to have the knowledge and expertise that come with doing a wide variety of work.
  In the other place, there was mention of the experimental scheme in Scotland called the Public Defence Solicitors Office. That was gifted to us by the previous Administration; perhaps it was one of the gifts that we did not appreciate at the time. It is odd that, having gifted to Scotland a public defender system, the Tories now find the creation of the same system in England so overwhelmingly terrible.
  I acknowledge that the scheme introduced in Scotland through the 1997 legislation is limited to only six solicitors and is designed as a pilot to test the viability of providing citizens who require state-funded assistance in criminal cases with an alternative to private practice solicitors, but, thanks to the previous Administration, those solicitors are now doing defence work as employees.

  287
  The scheme has been in operation for only about six months and I am told that already about 24 per cent. of clients are voluntary self-referrals. No clear conclusions can be drawn from the scheme at this stage, but other countries, such as Canada, have long experience of using state-employed lawyers in a mixed system, and surveys of clients, peer groups, prosecutors and judges there have shown high levels of satisfaction.
  In 1997, the Canadian Bar Association said that in the criminal field
  "it appears that the staff model"—
  that is, using an employed Bar—
  "is capable of delivering the same outcomes for lower costs than the private lawyer model or slightly better outcomes for the same cost."
  I admire the English system, but it is not the only possible model for encouraging independence in our lawyers. One of the aims of the Bill is to extend access to justice—there has been widespread support for that from hon. Members of all parties—and it will be judged on whether it delivers that. The previous Administration failed in that aim.
  About 20 years ago, I helped to establish a law centre in Dundee, and I am pleased to learn that so many hon. Members have been active in law centres. Even as a young lawyer, I recognised how inadequate was the provision of legal services. I pay tribute to the many lawyers who have contributed in their various ways to help to meet some of the unmet legal need, which is so great that a more directed approach is essential, as are substantial funds.
  Law, and access to law, is one of the great tools of social justice. By opening up the law and making assistance available to many more people we make it more likely that Governments and institutions will be challenged successfully when they act unlawfully.
  There have been improvements to the scheme in relation to contingency fees. I have never been a big fan of contingency fees, preferring the Scottish model of speculative fees, with no uplift provided, but I welcome the improvements that the Government are introducing in the Bill, and especially the proposed new section 58A of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, to allow rules of court to be made in respect of taxing of costs. There should be a challenge in the rules to a contingency fee in which the uplift is unjustified, as part of the taxing process.
  I welcome the proposal not to allow the contingency fee to encroach on damages. It is important to remember that, because damages in Scotland and in England and Wales are very much lower than in America, for example, we cannot draw successful comparisons with the use of contingency fees in other jurisdictions. The damages here may increase, which has both advantages and disadvantages, or contingency fees may not be as welcome here as they are elsewhere because the risks involved may be out of proportion to the amount of damages that may in the end be recovered.
  I do not accept every single item in the Bill, but I welcome and support it as a package.
  7.26 pm
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: Like my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Dr. Clark), I welcome parts of the Bill, largely because
  288
  it represents progress on the part of my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor towards my point of view, which I set out in two Bills designed to introduce a national legal service. He is clearly coming towards that populist point of view, aimed at demythologising the law and breaking restrictive practices by having an employed and more competitive legal service. We did not hear anything about that from Conservative Members.
  The Campaign for a National Legal Service, of which I am chairman, welcomes all repentant sinners, including, I hope, my hon. Friend the Minister. The problem is that the Bill does not go far enough. I am worried about the fact that it is clearly Treasury driven. The Treasury wants to stop exponential growth in expenditure of any kind. It does not do much about the common agricultural policy, which is exponential in much the same way, but it will do what it can about the law, even at the cost of reducing the access to justice of the mass of the population.
  Clearly, the Lord Chancellor has been given a brief to cut and, in his naive, youthful enthusiasm, he and the Minister originally launched into that mission of cutting, boots and all. They larded it with attacks on fat cats—or perhaps I should say other fat cats—but they went for substantial cuts in the legal aid budget. After a horrified reaction, they resiled, and the Bill represents part of that process of resiling. The cuts have been diluted and there are proposals to extend services into other areas. The Bill is something of a rag-bag as a result, but the extensions into other areas are very welcome.
  The Campaign for a National Legal Service has emphasised the need for an employed service. Private practice is inherently more expensive and less efficient, with higher overheads, so, if there were two services competing and the consumers could choose whether to pay fees or to proceed through a legally aided public service, that would be the best way of bringing access to justice to the people. That has been our basic principle and it is important to acknowledge that the Bill represents some progress in that direction.
  I argued earlier for a public defender service. Such services can be most efficient; they have been efficient in California and they are efficient in Hong Kong and New South Wales. However, the services could and should be provided through law centres, which are also efficient. We know that £8 billion a year is being paid for legal services; if that amount were divided between competing services—an employed service and private practice—and with the addition of some public funding, there would be enough money to provide a competitive service to the people. That would also ensure that lawyers compete to serve the purposes of the people, who would have the power of choice.
  A pause for thought to consider how best we could reform legal services to make them available to the mass of the people would have suggested going down the path that I have described. The worry about the Bill is that we did not do that; we went in backwards. First, we hoped for cuts, and it was only when cuts proved impossible that we considered alternatives. However, because we did not make those alternatives as firm and definite as they needed to be, we went only part of the way towards the necessary conclusion. That is the problem; the Bill is not based on a fundamental rethink of how we can best bring legal services to the mass of the people. It has always been the Labour party's hope to provide a national legal health service—a universal service according to people's

  289
  ability to pay—and to enact the right to representation and set up a framework to secure it. We did not approach the matter in that way; we went into it backwards and that is what is disappointing about the Bill—one step forwards, one step back. However, there has been some progress, although I regret that the opportunity to make further progress has been wasted.
  The Bill is not only a wasted opportunity, but a risk. Unfortunately, that risk is shouldered mainly by the poor, not by the legal profession, although its members are certainly frightened—the representations that I have received from solicitors show fear and nervousness—because they are faced with a substantial change. The poor are being transferred from a publicly supported, public service of legal aid to a competitive market. That market might offer rich pickings to big firms of solicitors and insurance companies, but it will not necessarily help to advance the cause of the poor in compensation cases.
  There have been drastic cuts to legal aid, but it is not responsible to make such cuts until we have an alternative that we know will work and will take on the burden carried by legal aid until now.
  "Supporters of legal aid must never cease to emphasise that it is a highly successful public service. In civil cases that reached judgment in 1995-96, the proportion of cases in which there was either a settlement or a judgment in favour of the assisted person was 91 per cent."
  That is not me speaking but the current Lord Chancellor, who pointed that out three years ago. He was right then and it is not right to cut legal aid as we are doing. Legal aid is being cut for minimal savings. The budget for civil legal aid in 1996 was £1,276 million, of which £436 million came back to the legal aid fund. In personal injury cases, £225 million was paid out and all but £37 million came back into the fund. We are doing great damage to poor people's access to representation for the sake of £37 million. We are forcing them off the great enabler—guaranteed legal aid—into a risky system that might not work.
  Some lawyers would argue that it is wrong in principle to do that. I cite one who spoke in the House of Lords:
  "I regard contingency fees in any shape or form, however, diluted, as abhorrent",
  at which some noble Lords cried, "Hear, hear!" They were probably hereditary peers whose views do not count for much in such matters. The noble Lord continued:
  "The argument that professional standards are so high that there would be no risks does not impress. Lawyers are ordinary human beings. No lawyer at the front end of litigation should be in the position that the ability to pay next month's mortgage turns on the outcome of the case. Litigation turns on advocates being trusted by the courts and by one another to play fair. Flirting with contingency fees is another gimmick to avoid state responsibility and to secure justice on the cheap. Like so many bargain basement practices, the lawyers would be no exception to the risk that shoddy standards would result."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 April 1989; Vol. 505, c. 1326]
  That is a magnificent quote. It came from a speech by Lord Irvine of Lairg, now our Lord Chancellor. I agree with him on that matter; it is a risk. The insurance products are not developed; we do not know whether they will be available. I have seen one system that asks for a non-refundable payment of £200 merely to look at the case. That will be a considerable burden for ordinary
  290
  people. There will be cherry picking. It will encourage the fat cats. Big practices will develop to take the best, safest and easiest cases. I cannot see how the system will help the poor and the vulnerable, who will be forced to hawk their case round to try to find a firm of solicitors who will fit it into the risk portfolio that firms will need to have. The poor will need to find a firm that can carry the burden of the expense of the medical evidence and the necessary research. That would be a big burden for small practices. In Grimsby, I am impressed by the effective service provided by competing small practices, but they cannot carry such burdens so it will be difficult for people to find solicitors to take their cases.
  When the tobacco court battle ground to a halt, two legal firms spent and lost £2.5 million because the litigants were denied legal aid. Mr. Day, a member of one of the firms stated:
  "This is the only multiparty action that has been funded under the `no win, no fee' scheme … The fact that we've been blown out means the chances of other firms taking on this sort of risk is next to nil. Plaintiffs taking on corporate giants are not going to get access to justice. It's a gloomy day."
  It will indeed be a gloomy day if such situations prevail. It is essential that we provide a service and protection for vulnerable people—the less well-off, who do not know or understand the problem. We should not replace legal aid until we know that we have a system that will take the strain and serve the purposes of such people. The matter is uncertain. The Lord Chancellor's research paper "The Price of Success" points out that there are many unanswered questions about the contingency fee system. The point is that we are hitting the poor and the risks of the measure are all faced by those least able to bear them.
  However, I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, who is now sitting on the Treasury Bench, will note that my attitude is now changing from criticism almost to sycophancy. I welcome the attack on restrictive legal practices, although we should take it further and abolish QCs—I see that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) has returned. We should penalise the late return of briefs, which has been such a problem in the legal aid system. A few years ago, some research in Sheffield showed the problems of representation for ordinary people; they get a service that falls off the back of the practice. The brief is dumped back on the practice at the last minute.
  I welcome the independent review of complaints and the strengthening of the role of the ombudsman because the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors has been a disastrous failure. Any Member of Parliament who has had to deal with the office regards it as a cumbersome, delaying, pettifogging mess. I welcome the Legal Services Commission; we should have had that years ago—it was part of my Bill. The commission should be independent; I do not want it to be dependent on political changes from the top—the measure gives a great deal of power to the Lord Chancellor.
  Most of all, I welcome the community legal service, which cannot come quick enough. Law centres must be the backbone of that service, providing demystified services to people on the high street. It is tragic that Brent law centre is going bust as we discuss the Bill, and other law centres, including the one in Humberside, which has done wonderful work and is now laying people off, are struggling to maintain themselves. The need for a community legal service must be met quickly.

  291
  I welcome all that, although it does not go far enough and I am not sure that we shall see the extension to service predicted in the Bill because the civil legal budget is not ring-fenced. It depends on savings being made in the criminal legal aid system, and they may not be forthcoming. Crime keeps going up, and cases are becoming more complicated. The money must be ring-fenced if we are to provide extra services. I would specify the grounds on which money can be made available and strengthen the provision of service.
  I must ask myself at this point how I will vote on the Bill. I shall, of course, consult my legal advisers. My QC—my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway—has come into the Chamber to advise me since I began my speech, and I hope that he will not return my brief at the last minute.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that I must interrupt the hon. Gentleman before we learn his decision.
  7.41 pm
  Mr. John M. Taylor: I had not intended to speak, but have been provoked into it by the refusal of the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) to give way. I should have been quite satisfied if he had.
  It is good for my soul to make an honest confession of my interests. As the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) has heard me say before, I practised as a high street solicitor for 22 miserable years, but went straight about 11 years ago. I must also confess that I was a junior Minister at the Lord Chancellor's Department for three and a half years, which represents at least a loss of innocence and at worst a hideous handicap for speaking in this debate.
  The point of entry between myself and the hon. Member for Leicester, East was his eulogy on citizens advice bureaux, to which I would happily have sung a chorus. I was one of the few who helped to start the CAB in Shirley in Solihull as long ago as 1973, when my constituency was represented by the father of my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) who is sitting just in front of me. We started that very good CAB 26 years ago, and I have the honour still to be its president.
  If the Minister or the Solicitor-General were to assist CABs further, they would have my support, and they would do a handsome piece of work by helping CABs to complete computer links in order to share best practice, quite literally at the press of a button. The Government would distinguish themselves by providing financial assistance to the voluntary side.
  This has been a rather good debate, and I am sorry not to have been here for all of it. I was particularly impressed by the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) who developed the theme of his anxiety about the idea that a judge on the payroll of the state might preside over proceedings contested between two other people on the payroll of the state.
  The right hon. Gentleman exonerated judges from any suggestion that they might follow what was thought to be their master's way, but was concerned that an employed plaintiff lawyer and defence lawyer in a civil case, or prosecution and defence lawyers in a criminal case, might be jointly motivated to get matters over with. It is dangerous even to contemplate that such a possibility should exist.
  292
  When I was at the Lord Chancellor's Department, tremendous arguments rattled, almost always unsuccessfully, to and from the Council of Legal Education in the pursuit of wider rights of audience. In particular, it was suggested that prosecutors employed by the Crown Prosecution Service should be able to appear in the higher courts. At that time, they could not, and they still cannot.
  The Bill introduces public defenders, presumably with rights of audience in the higher courts. How wide will it throw accession to rights of audience for the employed lawyers? I would not be hostile to that, but if the CPS could not have rights of audience under the existing system, why should public defenders have those rights? In the name of logic, must we not treat the two the same?
  I may be trespassing into matters best dealt with at the Committee stage. The points of detail for rights of audience are probably best left until then, but I give the Government Front-Bench team notice, which they scarcely need, that I shall certainly explore rights of audience in Committee.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: Does my hon. Friend realise that he is dealing with a point on which the Government have offered virtually no detail? We simply do not know how the criminal defence service will be expected to work, and what the Crown Prosecution Service will be expected to do in the higher courts remains unclear.
  Mr. Taylor: My right hon. and learned Friend enlarges on the unhappier aspects of the Bill, and I fear that I can do nothing to mitigate the gravity of the problem that he sees.
  We heard a most interesting speech from the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) who generously took an inordinate number of interventions, including one from me. However, I never received an answer to my question to him, and I shall put it firmly on the record once again because it is worthy of an answer, if not tonight, at some later stage.
  Some people have spoken in favour of conditional fee arrangements, and some against. I am not coming down on one side or the other, although I marginally favour them. A critical question lies at the centre of the conditional fee issue, however. Simply, what is a win? How do we define success? The lawyer will have an interest in having the threshold of a win set as low as possible so that he may overcome it to receive his uplift. The client has a contrasting interest in the highest possible threshold so that only the best possible outcome rates as a win.
  There is a mismatch between the interests of the lawyer and those of the client. There is a further mismatch in that the lawyer is a professional who is about that kind of question day in and day out. He is trained in these matters, and he understands the question. The client does not. That is why I asked the hon. and learned Member for Medway whether he had ever had any difficulty in determining what was a win. I asked whether he agreed that there were circumstances in which an individual client was entitled to independent third party advice on whether what was being recommended to him as a win was in fact fair. That question remains unanswered.
  Dr. Lynda Clark: I agree that there are practical difficulties. For example, is a settlement proposal a win,

  293
  or is it not a win? In the context of a contingency fee, it is difficult to decide whether the case should be settled if there is not enough money on the table. Those difficulties arise under the new system, whereas they did not arise under the old system in the same way.
  Mr. Burnett: I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor), and we have discussed the matter several times in Committee. Does he agree that the problem is even more exacerbated in matrimonial matters? What is a win in a matrimonial case?
  Mr. Taylor: In my personal experience, there is no such thing as a win in a matrimonial matter.
  Perhaps this is the moment for me to talk about the contribution in chief made by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Dr. Clark). Here is my lost innocence: the hon. and learned Lady does not blame the lawyers. [Interruption.] I am sure that she said that. I have to modify that statement: I do not entirely blame the lawyers.
  Has the hon. and learned Lady, or anyone else in the House, never come across a criminal case which proceeded in the following fashion? The lawyer intercepts the client, or vice versa and, after a degree of consideration, the time for which is logged, a not guilty plea is entered. There then follow a couple of adjournments, which are well argued for. Then come the preparation of the depositions, the committal proceedings and a couple of trips to the prison or the cells. The case finally turns up at the Crown court and a jury is empanelled. The plea is then changed to guilty and the bill is submitted. That certainly happens, and I believe that legal aid has been abused in some such cases.
  There is another question that I do not think has been addressed so far today, although I confess that I have not been present throughout the debate. Personal injury cases have rightly been mentioned, but what about the duty solicitor schemes? I thought that they were one of the best aspects of legal aid, and certainly represented the best unit cost and the best value for money in the legal aid system.
  When I was—that sounds like an old soldier talking, does it not? When I was at the Lord Chancellor's Department, the best value for money in the legal aid bill was provided by groups—or panels, call them what one will—of duty solicitors. Those people were prepared to represent unrepresented defendants. They had to show competence in a particular subject to be on the panel in the first place. They were then paid legal aid rates, and had every incentive to wrap up the case on the day that it started and get back to the office. That is what one did when it was one's turn to be the duty solicitor. Those schemes were good, and the Bill will mean the end of them.
  As I near the end of my speech, I shall declare one more interest. I started a duty solicitor scheme. That was before such schemes were permitted; there was no statutory legal cover in those days. In fact, such schemes were offensive to the Law Society's basic rules about the client's ability to choose his own lawyer. We had to go to the Law Society and beg for a derogation from what was then called rule 2—although one would have to look in an ancient tome to find that rule with the same number
  294
  as it had in my day. That is what we had to do to run a pre-statutory duty solicitor scheme in Solihull, where nearly all good things start.
  Mr. Bercow: And come to an end?
  Mr. Taylor: I think not.
  All our speeches are subject to a time limit today, and I have no intention of trespassing either on eternity or on your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Having heard what I had to say—when I first stood up, 1 did not know what that would be—I have come to the conclusion that I am against the Bill and will vote against it.
  7.54 pm
  Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: In common with other hon. Members who have spoken, I declare an interest, albeit the minimal interest of being at the end of a list of consultants on the headed notepaper of the firm in which I was previously a partner.
  If it were only a few extra pounds that were needed to save the legal aid fund, the House would probably support the provision of that sum. However, the encouraging thing about what the Government are doing is that they are not seeking to save money—at least, not in the short term. The budget for the coming year is higher than the previous Administration's projected budget.
  Radical change is needed in the legal aid system that we inherited, because it is costly but still fails to live up to the demands placed upon it. For 25 years, before I entered the House, I was regularly engaged in civil legal aid work and my delight at being elected to Parliament was almost matched by the knowledge that I would not have to fill in another legal aid form.
  The old system had become bureaucratic. I have estimated that about 20 per cent. of the time of people doing legal aid work is spent filling in forms, reporting to the Legal Aid Board, and so on. Even within the franchising system, that is still a significant, time-wasting, frustrating and costly element. Having spent 20 per cent. of 25 years doing that, I hope that my first five years in Parliament will be more productive than the five years of my life that I wasted filling in forms.
  Of greater concern, however, is the injustice that the present system metes out. One was frequently asked to advise on a case that had little merit, but, because the individual met the qualifications for legal aid and was within scope, one would take counsel's opinion, and counsel would suggest that the case was worth a try.
  The injustice was not, of course, done to the happy recipient of the state's generosity, but to the unhappy defendant, who was often bound to settle, perhaps unjustly, because the cost of defending a case against a legally aided party was prohibitive. Perhaps there was no great sympathy for a defendant who was an insurer, but the justice of the case was still questionable.
  Other claims were abandoned either because the claimants were out of scope for legal aid—a growing phenomenon because of the changes that were made to cap expenditure—or because the contribution called for was so significant that it deterred the would-be litigant, even if he or she had a good case. Litigation had therefore become a pastime for no one but the rich and the poor.

  295
  The present system also encourages waste. That is not only the waste in the administration of the process, which I have already mentioned, but the waste that results from the incentive for lawyers to make the most of the legal aid certificate. Milking the legal aid system, although it may be done by only a minority of lawyers, will inevitably be a temptation when there is no one at the "point of sale" to challenge the wisdom of the procedures adopted.
  Last night I asked my taxi driver, "Why do you go by the shortest route?" He replied, "Because you're sitting next to me." He admitted that when students used his services at the expense of a language school, he took the long route because someone else was paying. That is what happens, or at least what can happen, with the existing legal aid system.
  For those reasons, among others, I welcome the Government's initiative in the Bill. However, I have some comments on two aspects of it. First, there is the extension of conditional fees, which most hon. Members have spoken about. Secondly, there are the contracting arrangements proposed for the delivery of services.
  As for conditional fees, I see no reason why a solicitor should not back his or her judgment. They are not being asked to become bookmakers simply to display some confidence in their own advice. I learned of the benefits of conditional fees by accident when I realised that appearing at industrial tribunals was regarded as a non-contentious activity and was therefore eligible for conditional fees. In such non-contentious proceedings it is possible to operate on a conditional fees basis, and I and many other practitioners have found that that provides an effective opportunity for litigants to take their cases, and for the practitioners who have offered that opportunity to be rewarded. The new system gives a greater incentive because of the possible extra bonus available.
  I have experience of some of the benefits of conditional fees. First, when one is on them, one is careful about advising that a case is worth pursuing. More especially, one does no more than one must to bring the case to a successful conclusion. The extraneous process with which one can become bound up is to be avoided at any—indeed, one's own—cost. Proper reward based on successful outcome is a challenge that lawyers should seize with both hands. Coupled with the rule reforms, it should enable lawyers to practise real law rather than the tedium of unnecessary procedure for the benefit of no one.
  There is also the opportunity of the completely new market of people with genuine disputes to settle but who cannot afford the process under the present system. That is the Government's new deal job creation scheme for lawyers. The legal profession should not complain. It also means that litigants who have not before had the chance will be able to take their cases to law.
  I have a reservation about how the rules on disclosure of a conditional fee agreement would operate. To put defendants, such as insurers, on notice of the rate of uplift would be to put them on notice of the perceived strength of the case. The present conditions on legal aid certificates do not make that necessary.
  Legal aid, by its nature, is limited. My limited experience suggests that few people with reasonable cases that would have passed the merit test of the Legal Aid Board, or even, under a franchising agreement, of a
  296
  solicitor, will be denied the opportunity of a CFA. Solicitors already offer no win, no fee opportunities in the national and local press every week.
  I am also convinced that the Government are right about the purchase of legal services. A mix of private and voluntary sector provision based on expertise and price will provide the most effective delivery system. Although great play is often made of the theoretical choice that litigants enjoy in choosing representatives, the reality is that it is not as great as it seems. Under the present system, litigants choose their solicitor by recommendation, by where they live or by referral. They often have neither the knowledge nor the ability to judge quality until it is sometimes too late.
  The franchising arrangements that have already developed have to some extent been helpful in ensuring that the firms selected for particular areas of work are competent. However, I have reservations about the measurement of that competence, which seems to be based more on compliance with procedures than on expertise offered or success rate. I hope that, under the new regime, more effective means of monitoring results will ensure that high-quality services are provided. That applies in two situations in particular. First, as contracts are available to non-legally qualified bodies, the advice that they give must be monitored by legally qualified personnel, not simply by an administrative procedure.
  The second concerns the extension of rights of advocates. I believe that that extension is correct, but it is essential that the advocates let loose are competent in advocacy. Many solicitors would acknowledge that they are not particularly good at it; some banisters are not, but they find out sooner.
  Even the present franchise arrangements are valuable, in that successful franchisees gain experience in a particular area of law rather than, as previously, dealing with areas for the first time. That applies especially in sparsely populated areas, where practitioners dabble in all manner of work. While the contracting system is open to the criticism that there may be restriction of choice, it will ensure that the lawyer acting in a case is experienced in the field to which the contract relates, and, I hope, subject to monitoring of results. In many ways, a client with the benefit of a contracted lawyer will have more to be sure than the private paying client who chooses his own.
  This is a good news Bill. It is good news for the public purse because it discourages waste and inefficiency. It is good news for clients, many of whom will have access to the conditional fee regime for the first time. For the less well off, there is a virtual Government guarantee that the lawyer is competent. Finally, it is good for the legal profession, which will have the opportunity to specialise more, achieve unit cost savings and provide a more satisfying service for its clients.
  8.5 pm
  Mr. Oliver Heald: I declare an interest as a barrister for more than 20 years. I also lecture on law from time to time. I listened with great interest to the enthusiastic speech of the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster). He said that it was a very good Bill for everyone. I would say that it is good in parts, a curate's egg of a Bill.
  We should welcome the setting up of the community legal service. I was on the committee of the Free Representation Unit, a body set up by the Bar to give free

  297
  legal advice in areas of unmet need. Its members included not only barristers but solicitors, social workers and social administration experts. I had the unenviable task of choosing which 15 of the 80 cases that had come in we could service. At that time, some years ago, there was great unmet need in the social welfare field. It is right that lawyers should want to do pro bono work.
  The approach with the community legal service suggested in the Bill is a good thing, but we must all share the concern about its funding. The Lord Chancellor said that its funding will be
  "what is left over … after the prior claims of criminal legal aid have been met."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 January 1999; Vol. 596, c. 738.]

  That means that overspending on criminal cases could well lead to a cut in funding to the community legal service. I strongly support the idea of the service, but I hope that it will get the money and means to make it work.
  That is a good part of the Bill. I am not at all sure about conditional fees. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) that, in certain circumstances, conditional fees can be a good way to finance legal cases. However, the field of personal injuries has been singled out and will rely totally on conditional fees. I am concerned about that. Like the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye, I know that the gateways to legal aid have often not been monitored adequately and that cases have been pursued that should not have been. However, one would not say that that was the case in respect of personal injuries.
  The results show that some 91 per cent. of legal aid money spent on personal injuries cases has been recovered. That success is striking. The money from the legal aid budget spent on personal injuries is about £33 million. Is that the area to choose to make a point about conditional fees? I would have said that it was not.
  Some hon. Members have pointed to the fact that trade unions provide excellent services in this area. I agree that, particularly in some cases that involved a huge investment of time in preparation and medical research, the trade unions have done excellent work. However, not every case has a trade union to fund it. The personal injuries cases of most concern are often deserving ones where much money needs to be invested to prove them. There are cases where it is not certain medically what the condition is or how it is caused. Such cases need huge sums to be spent to establish them. In cases that are deserving but of less than certain outcome, it is unlikely that many firms of solicitors will want to expend the large sums necessary to ground them. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) gave the example of the tobacco case, which has recently been before the courts. In that case, £2.5 million was spent on a no win, no fee basis. The solicitor who was involved said plainly, never again. There are important and deserving cases where funding will not be available.
  There are other cases—not necessarily involving conditions such as emphysema and white finger—such as motoring accidents that are out of the ordinary. For example, there is the case where to establish the liability of the opponent it is necessary to bring in an accident reconstruction expert. It is necessary also to have the vehicles involved thoroughly examined and to present
  298
  medical evidence about the injuries. On first receiving a case as a lawyer, one would say, "There is nowhere near enough information." At that moment, someone would have to decide whether to take the risk of undertaking the case on a conditional fee basis. Many firms would say, "It is too risky to spend that sort of money trying to establish a case."
  In such a case, the cost of insurance would be high. It is said that for the run-of-the-mill case it would be £300, but in a case where a large sum needs to be invested to establish liability, there is talk that the insurance premium might be as high as £20,000, a sum which is beyond the reach of most individuals.
  We know that at present 91 per cent. of legal aid provision expended is recovered, which suggests that it is an economic process. If we proceed on a no win, no fee basis with an uplift of up to 100 per cent. and recovery from the opponent of insurance costs incurred, the overall legal cost per case will rise. As a consequence, insurance premiums could increase in personal injury cases. Overall, we could move from a system that is very efficient and does not cost much money in the scheme of things to one that, on average, costs more per case. Yet in the most deserving cases, where legal aid is most appropriate, no one will be prepared to fund the action. I have concerns about conditional fees.
  I am not entirely convinced that civil legal aid should be dealt with exclusively through contracts with quality assured firms of solicitors. One of the beauties of the English system is that high street solicitors have been ready to take on a wide range of work. An individual can approach such a firm and obtain advice. Of course, some cases are extremely complicated, but there are many where it is not necessary to be an absolute expert to be able to give sensible, competent advice. Access to justice in a locality is important and there is a danger that that will be denied by the scheme before us. With the best of intentions, it will lead to much red tape and many solicitors' firms saying, "We cannot go through the process of becoming quality assured. We shall not do this work." That will deny people access to justice.
  As for the criminal justice defence system, I do not share the optimism of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby that there will be an improvement if there are salaried lawyers on both sides of the case who are both paid by the state. I share the experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) of having worked on circuit as a barrister in my early days, appearing in criminal cases. On one day I would be the prosecutor and on the next the defender. The system meant that every barrister within an area—in my case, East Anglia—knew one another. That was important because it meant that standards of behaviour were high. It meant also that, because we had the experience day in and day out of appearing as prosecutors and defenders, we were more objective.
  We were not always prosecutors, and that gave us a certain objectivity. When we were defending, we were not so defence minded as not to give sensible advice to a client. I worry about a system where there will be a criminal defender and a state prosecutor, with everyone entrenched in undertaking the same sort of work all the time. Will that provide quality and competence? Will standards be maintained?

  299
  There is dissatisfaction in other countries with the idea
  i that there is the poor man's lawyer: the state lawyer, as opposed to the private lawyer, the class act or the Rolls-Royce. We have always avoided that system. We have had a high level of representation overall, which has been provided to defendants, whatever their background, through the legal aid system. I hope that that will continue.
  There are good things in the Bill, but it is a curate's egg. Given the things that are wrong with it, I intend to vote against it tonight.
  8.17 pm
  Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: Like my hon. Friends the Members for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd), I am not a lawyer and I have not been involved with the legal profession. Therefore, it was with some trepidation that I decided to become involved in the debate. I am aware that many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House are lawyers. However, the debate has been fascinating. Niceties have been exchanged across the Chamber. Hierarchical structures become apparent as right hon. and hon. Members refer to their professional roles. I am pleased that I have the opportunity to bring some reality to the debate.
  It may surprise many in the legal profession that there is less respect for them than for politicians. Those in this place who are lawyers should beware for the future.
  The Bill is vital because it will bring change. As my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby said, it will bring about progress. My hon. Friend the Minister of State will not be surprised that I intend to concentrate on one aspect of it because I have seen him on numerous occasions with colleagues from many organisations who are concerned about the standards and regulation of solicitors. I have been happy to hear what has been said about the supervision of solicitors, but much more needs to be done.
  I put on record my thanks to Dr. Paul Edwards, who has assisted me in providing evidence of complaints against solicitors. I have been able to highlight various concerns to my hon. Friend the Minister of State. His organisation and others have campaigned effectively on the supervision of solicitors.
  The main thrust of the Bill is to improve the standard of service that is provided by the legal profession. That is vital. It is a recurring theme that the Lord Chancellor and my hon. Friend the Minister have emphasised at a number of meetings with the profession. I do not recognise the charge that was made against my hon. Friend about not consulting the legal profession. I have been present at a number of meetings in the area of Bradford that I represent where he has met representatives of the Law Society and other representatives of the legal profession. At those meetings, he has presented robustly the need for change. The case has been well received by many of the organisations representing the legal profession, even though there are concerns about exactly what needs to be done.
  The attainment and maintenance of acceptable professional standards requires an effective regulation mechanism. As has been said on both sides of the House, there is concern about the regulation of solicitors. Letters have flowed, parliamentary questions have been tabled
  300
  and generally people have made their concerns known. The Office for the Supervision of Solicitors was intended to replace the discredited bureau dealing with complaints against solicitors. It came into existence in September 1996, when complaints against solicitors were running at about 22,000 a year. By March 1998, the figure had increased to 35,000. By February 1999, it had reached 40,000. The OSS's recent quarterly report showed that it had failed to meet most of its targets. That has led the legal services ombudsman—who happens to be a woman—to warn that she will have to report that the OSS has failed to make the necessary progress. Her report will be released in June. I was pleased to hear the Minister's comments in that regard today.
  Other indicators show that all is not well with the regulation of solicitors. The Home Office has identified solicitors' involvement in legal aid immigration rackets—an issue which we discussed last month in the context of the Immigration and Asylum Bill. Home Office Ministers have warned solicitors about their involvement in such activities. The National Criminal Intelligence Service has investigated the involvement of firms of solicitors in organised crime, particularly money laundering, and there are many other factual instances of substantial wrongdoing on the part of solicitors.

  Self-regulation does not work, and I am heartened by the move to give stronger powers to the legal services ombudsman. However, I am slightly confused as to how that will relate to the continuing work of the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors. I hope that the Minister will explain in more detail how that relationship will develop in future. 1 recognise that the Law Society has advanced plans for radical change, but the OSS has been discredited. I do not attack the individuals within that office who have tried to establish an MP hotline and to provide further information. However, they have suffered from a lack of funding and support.
  We must also examine the work of the legal services ombudsman. The ombudsman has ignored recommendations in the past, and matters have taken a long time to reach the ombudsman. I hope that the Minister will consider tonight and in Committee the workings of those organisations that have produced many cases where people have been failed by their solicitors.
  There has been no mention of the solicitors indemnity fund—I know that that issue does not relate directly to the Bill, but it affects people's confidence in solicitors—and the failings in that area. I became involved in the case of my constituent who was selling her home in order to buy a business in Scotland. Her solicitor did the conveyancing and ultimately produced a £4,000 cheque for my constituent. She thought that that sum was far in excess of the amount to which she was entitled and wrote to the solicitor about her concerns. The solicitor replied to say that the details had been checked and that she was entitled to the £4,000. My constituent took the cheque and invested it in her new business in Scotland.
  Three months later, my constituent received a letter to say that there had been a mistake and that the solicitor was owed £4,000. The solicitor took the matter to the solicitors indemnity fund, which paid him the £4,000 that he was owed and then hired him to reclaim the debt from my constituent. That cannot be right, and I know of many other horrific stories like that.

  301
  We want to raise standards in the profession and ensure that people can have confidence in the legal system. I hope that my hon. Friends will consider those matters. As I have said, there have been numerous meetings and Ministers have listened intently to the views of Dr. Edwards and others. I hope that the Minister will provide some details about how the process will work in practice. If it does not work effectively, ordinary people will not have confidence in the legal system.
  I am pleased that the community legal service is to be established. I add my support to hon. Members' comments about citizens advice bureaux and law centres. The law centre in Bradford has done excellent work over the years and supported many good causes. Community legal services enable ordinary people to have confidence in solicitors. Most people think that solicitors' services will cost them a fortune and do not wish to lodge legal aid applications because they do not understand the mysterious system.
  I welcome the positive attitude that the Minister and others have displayed towards the role that trade unions and trade union schemes can play in legal matters. As an ex-trade union official, I have seen members benefit over many years from the excellent work of trade union schemes. There are many excellent trade union lawyers on this side of the House who have done some tremendous work.
  Time is short and many hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate. I welcome the future development of the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors.
  8.25 pm
  Mr. Andrew Dismore: I declare an interest in the debate as a solicitor who has been in practice for 20 years and specialised in personal injury work—mainly for trade unions. However, I am not taking any cases now as I do not think that I can do so practically while continuing to represent my constituents properly in this place. I was also an assessor for the Law Society specialist personal injury panel, and I remain a member of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers executive committee. I welcome the significant reforms in the Bill, which amount to some of the biggest changes in the civil justice system for decades. Some of my former colleagues may view me as poacher and gamekeeper, but I believe that it is my job to speak not for lawyers but for my constituents and the general public.
  Much of the debate so far has focused on the funding of litigation, especially personal injury cases, and I suspect has turned off many in the outside world who view it as lawyers' special pleading. As I wish to raise several other issues, I shall say very little about that. While I have some reservations about legal aid, I therefore welcome the reform of conditional fee funding—especially the requirement for unsuccessful defendants to meet the cost of success fees and insurance premiums.
  Research into conditional fees was conducted recently. A survey conducted by BDO Stoy Haywood in February 1999 found that the outlook was optimistic. It revealed not just the 98 per cent. success rate of conditional fee agreements so far, but that a majority of the firms surveyed expected CFAs to be more profitable than traditional funding methods over the next three years.
  302
  Many of the fears within the profession are probably unjustified. The survey identified a fear factor among small firms that can be overcome with appropriate training and education.
  I successfully took to the House of Lords a speculative funding case against the previous Government, and I welcome the Government's decision to end the uncertainty over speculative funding. However, I hope that they will go further and abolish entirely the arcane and outdated indemnity principle, which is nothing more than a restraint on fair competition in civil litigation. I believe that its end would undoubtedly lead to a freer market for legal services and better deals for lawyers' customers—especially bulk purchasers.
  If we are serious about looking out for the interests of the public, not the lawyers, we must tackle one of the main causes of high expenditure on big cases: the Queen's Counsel system. While I welcome the transfer of costs of administering the system to the profession, that is only the start of reforming—and preferably abolishing—the QC system. It will not have escaped the Minister's notice that more than 100 Members of Parliament have signed the early-day motion calling for the abolition of that anachronistic distinction.
  The QC system operates not in the public interest but at its expense. Double manning remains rife. Although the Bar claims that the title "QC" is equivalent to a certificate of excellence, everyone knows that that is nonsense. There are good, bad and indifferent QCs, just as there are good, bad and indifferent people in every profession. If it were a proper accreditation arrangement, the silk system would have transparent assessments against objective criteria rather than the old-boy network, which, despite the best endeavours of the Lord Chancellor, maintains an inherent bias on the grounds of race, gender and age. Despite the substantial change in his or her practice facing a new QC, there is no probationary period, monitoring, appraisal, continuing education requirements or complaints procedure. Many silks draw all or most of their substantial earnings from public funds, yet there are no means of judging whether the client or taxpayer gets value for money.
  I suggest to my hon. Friend that if the silk system is to continue, the public sector should recognise the volume of work it gives to QCs. I suspect that more than half of the work for silks is funded through legal aid, the Crown Prosecution Service, Government agencies and Departments, the national health service or local government. With some creative thinking, the Government could use that substantial purchasing power to negotiate more realistic fee levels. We know that QCs earn up to £600,000 before they are appointed, and their earnings increase substantially after that. While some QCs give generously of their time, many do not. I do not think it is unfair to expect a QC to do some work pro bono as a requirement of appointment. That would enable some of those who are less well off and who cannot afford the services of a QC to benefit from their expertise.
  If the Bar cannot accept the challenge to modernise the QC system, I hope that the Government will accept the early-day motion and abolish the system. I believe that many litigants and practitioners would welcome such a move, judging from the substantial number of supportive letters that I have received in my campaign. Those people

  303
  favour the ending of yet another unjustified restrictive practice that is operated by lawyers for lawyers and which is not in the public interest.
  Mr. Garnier: How does the hon. Gentleman know what privately funded QCs earn?
  Mr. Dismore: Those figures have been published in answer to parliamentary questions that I have tabled.
  Mr. Gamier: Will the hon. Gentleman give way again?
  Mr. Dismore: No.
  Mr. Gamier rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot have a conversation between two hon. Members who are both on their feet at the same time. The hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) did not give way a second time.
  Mr. Dismore: The issue relates not only to public funding. I suggest that the hon. and learned Gentleman reads the parliamentary questions that 1 have tabled on that issue.
  The Bill provides the opportunity to consider the services provided by the central players in the legal system—the judges. The judiciary is not representative of modern society. There are almost no women in the higher echelons and no senior judges from ethnic minorities. Despite the Lord Chancellor's best efforts, judges are still predominantly drawn from the same narrow background. The judiciary is increasingly important and its powers are ever growing because of the Human Rights Act 1998, the judiciary's involvement in constitutional issues, especially after devolution, and judicial review, so the fact that judges should reflect our society also becomes more important.
  The Lord Chancellor has rightly demonstrated that his policy is one of appointment on merit, and I would not for one moment suggest that judicial appointments should not be made on merit. However, I question whether the criteria against which that merit is tested and which form the basis for appointment should not also be reviewed.
  The judiciary is essentially drawn from the Bar. Without change, there is little prospect of major reform of the constitution of the Bench. Why should a barrister who has spent many years in the adversarial cockpit exclusively be deemed to have the best qualifications to be an impartial judge? We should re-examine the qualifying criteria and perhaps, as Lord Borne suggested in another place, broaden the base to include chairmen of tribunals and academic lawyers. They could be monitored in the same way that part-time judges are. Let us remember that employment tribunal chairmen already often decide extremely complicated points of law and substantial compensation claims.
  I agree, to some extent, with the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett), who spoke for the Liberal Democrats, that the time has now come for a judicial appointments commission, like those adopted in many other common-law jurisdictions, to include both lay and lawyer members to consider recruiting, screening, investigating and evaluating judicial candidates.
  304
  Such a commission could also be responsible for maintaining a register of pecuniary and non-pecuniary interests for the judiciary. That issue has been thrown into sharp focus by not only the Pinochet case but the recent revelations in the Sunday newspapers concerning potential financial conflicts of interest over directorships held by some judges. Two or three times in my professional experience, when acting for accident victims, I had doubts about the part-time judges trying the cases because I knew that the judges, in their ordinary jobs as barristers, drew their practice primarily from defendant insurance companies. My clients picked up my concerns and were concerned themselves about whether they had a fair trial.
  The argument that we can expect judges to police themselves on outside interests is similar to the arguments that politicians used to advance, which have been rightly and firmly debunked throughout the remainder of public life. The judiciary's position should be no different. Those before the courts are entitled to the reassurance that the judge has no interest affecting the case. That would not only be good for the litigants but provide added protection for the judiciary against allegations of bias and would provide clear guidelines to judges in what is at present an uncertain area. It will not have escaped the notice of my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General that more than 100 Members have signed early-day motion 456 calling for reforms along those lines.
  Finally, I turn to the problems facing people who have been bereaved or severely injured as a result of serious accidents and disasters. The public inquiry system that has developed over the years is inconsistent; it leads to considerable duplication with additional expense; it creates delays leading to sometimes contradictory outcomes, and it almost always increases the suffering and distress of relatives and victims.
  As the Bill proceeds into Committee, I urge my hon. Friend to consider adding provisions to deal with at least some of the system's more glaring inadequacies; for example, to empower the chair of an inquiry, who is often a judge, to act also as coroner, to avoid the need for an inquest going over the same ground.
  I was involved in the legal consequences of the King's Cross fire. The 93-day public inquiry was followed by a two-week inquest, which largely covered the same ground. Inquests were also held after the full public inquiries into the Zeebrugge, Kegworth and Piper Alpha disasters and the Clapham rail crash, adding little to the public inquiry findings but much to the distress of the relatives.lb/>
  We could also shorten and simplify civil proceedings for compensation, and make them more certain, by allowing inquiry findings of fact to be binding in subsequent civil proceedings. We need to ensure that the possibility of criminal proceedings does not block the whole process. It is outrageous that the Marchioness families had to wait seven years, and undergo the most appallingly expensive and time-consuming esoteric legal wrangling, before they finally secured a public airing of the issues, only for the coroner's jury findings of unlawful killing to fall on deaf ears.
  I very much support the Bill, but we could add to and improve it in Committee, to improve access to justice and the quality of justice and to reduce cost.
  8.36 pm
  Mr. Paul Stinchcombe: I, too, declare at the outset my interest as a barrister. I was involved in the litigation following the Marchioness disaster, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) referred.
  Everyone in the Chamber and, I dare say, the country agrees that it is a cornerstone of any acceptable notion of freedom that all citizens should have equal access to the law and that, once before the law, all citizens should have equal treatment under it. Notwithstanding the unanimous opinion that equality before the law is a precondition of a civilised society, we have not achieved that precondition. The root cause of that failure is simple—legal services in this country have been seen by many who provide them as essentially a commercial commodity to be bought and sold in the marketplace, rather than as an indispensable facet of our human rights.
  As a junior banister, I heard another junior barrister ask yet another, "How many crates of champagne can you get in the back of your Ferrari?" I heard an eminent silk complain, "The hardest £200,000 to earn every year is the £200,000 that takes you to your million." I recite those incidents not to add to past diatribes about fat cats. Like other hon. Members, I am well aware that many practitioners operate from the high street, law centres, or general common law and criminal chambers, where financial rewards are far from excessive.
  I recite those incidents for the good reason that any legal system built in significant part around the financial rewards for practitioners is bound to be prey to twin dangers. The first is that access to legal services becomes the privilege of the rich rather than the right of everyone. The second is that when the state is forced to pick up the bill of those who are unable to pay, it, too, may be faced with a cost burden that is too high for the taxpayer easily to bear.
  I believe that our history demonstrates those dangers to have come to pass in our jurisprudence and jurisdiction. With prices fixed by the private market, the poor and the not so poor have been largely unable to pay the costs of litigation, and the means by which Governments, during the past 50 years, have sought to meet that gap—the legal aid system, established by Labour and seen by us for many years as a vital pillar of the welfare state—has come under huge strain.
  Five decades later, with legal aid still available on only a limited basis, the costs of central Government assistance have spiralled and, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State said when he introduced the Bill, we pay more, but get less.
  Those are realities with which the Government must deal as they seek to achieve aims that are in tension—to enhance the access to justice of our citizens, and yet simultaneously to control the public costs by which, even on a limited basis, access has previously been provided. Unsurprisingly, faced with a problem—a dilemma—of that difficulty, which calls for radical change when radical change is inherently controversial, the Government have introduced a Bill that is controversial in part. It is a series of hard choices, the results of many of which are very good—I welcome in particular the community legal service—although some cause me greater concern.
  306
  I am concerned about the lack of a Government-inspired objectives clause, and look forward with great interest to the words that I hope will be penned by my right hon. and hon. Friends in due course.
  I have some sympathy with the trenchant speech by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) in so far as he voiced the specific concern about whether those who are vulnerable—the disabled, and especially the young—should be forced to seek conditional fee agreement funding for their personal injury cases.
  I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General will reassure me on two aspects, which have not been mentioned in detail. The first concerns the failure to extend legal aid to representation before tribunals; the second concerns the funding of civil legal aid.
  All hon. Members present must be well aware that tribunals have very wide and important jurisdictions. Their decisions can have grave implications for many individuals, in fields as diverse as immigration, employment and social security. It has, therefore, been of considerable concern to many that those individuals have often been denied representation.
  I thought that my Government would share that concern, because they have repeatedly said that one of the aims of the current reforms of publicly funded legal services is to prioritise social welfare law. The White Paper "Modernising Justice" says that in terms. It says that among the areas given greatest priority will be "social welfare cases" because those concern "people's basic entitlements", such as their "correct social security benefits"—to which basic entitlements we can surely add basic employment and immigration rights. What better way is there to give credible support to that asserted priority than to extend legal aid representation to cases heard by such tribunals?
  Some hon. Members have mentioned the lack of research to justify some of the proposals, but the Lord Chancellor's Department has undertaken research which shows that the presence of a representative at such hearings significantly increases the applicant's chances of success. We therefore have an opportunity to use the Bill, which we call a landmark Bill—rightly so in many respects—to act on that research at least, and to meet the clear need to extend legal aid to such tribunals and such cases. I ask my hon. Friends not to close the door on that possibility, but to consider it again.
  That brings me to the second matter that I wish to discuss—civil legal aid, a matter mentioned by the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett). I previously understood the proposal to be that the civil legal aid budget would be capped. I was not overjoyed by that proposal, as it raised the prospect—at least to me—that some cases that should be funded might not be funded, but I was at least reassured that, under the cap, the civil legal aid budget would be ring-fenced from pressure being exerted on it by other spending commitments, and specifically from spending pressures via the criminal legal aid system.
  The Government's White Paper, "Modernising Justice", said that the community legal service fund would
  "operate under a controlled budget—with finite resources,"
  whereas the criminal defence service would be a separate scheme with a different budget. The White Paper said:

  307
  "Separating the two schemes in this way reflects the fact that they are responsible for providing different types of service in very different types of case; and that each scheme has its own distinct objectives and priorities."
  The authors of the White Paper were right to say so. However, it now seems that the community legal service fund will not be separate from the criminal scheme at all, but will be dependent and contingent upon it.
  I understand that, under the current proposals, the community legal service fund could be cut in the event of an unexpected or unplanned increase in expenditure on criminal legal services. I want to know whether I am right or wrong about that. I hope that I am wrong, but I have my doubts. In another place, my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor—who, incidentally, was head of my first chambers—said:
  "the only money that is left for civil legal aid is what is left over out of that budget after the requirements of criminal legal aid have been met".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 January 1999; Vol. 596, c. 918.]
  Let me say to Ministers that, if that is the case, it is a cause of real concern to me and, I suspect, to many others. It is a step beyond the capping of the civil legal aid budget—which worried some of us in any event—and it will mean that the civil legal aid budget will not be ring-fenced at all. It could mean that the criminal legal aid budget could squeeze out the civil legal aid budget altogether—especially given that the criminal budget is already growing faster than the civil budget, and will grow faster still when the Human Rights Act 1998 is in force.
  I do not view that prospect very kindly, and it gives rise to a number of important questions. If expenditure on criminal legal aid was unexpectedly high, might the Lord Chancellor be forced to rule that certain types of civil litigation would no longer be eligible for legal aid? Is it possible that contracts issued for civil legal work could be terminated suddenly, or will significant funds be kept in reserve to prevent those fears from being realised? I hope so.
  I ask for reassurance because otherwise, through what is a good Bill—a Bill entitled the Access to Justice Bill—we shall risk achieving the opposite of what we want.
  8.47 pm
  Mr. David Kidney: Before I became a Member of Parliament at the last general election, I was a solicitor in a private practice on the high street in Stafford, dealing with a fair amount of legal aid work. Not long after I came here, I first heard the cry of an hon. Member—oft repeated since—that there are too many lawyers in this place. Perhaps it is my legal background, but I am a bit suspicious of such sweeping generalisations, so I went off to find out the facts.
  The three main parties in the current Parliament contain 64 lawyers. I do not know whether hon. Members think that that is too many or too few. There are 36 barristers and 28 solicitors. Since 1983, when there were 104 lawyers in Parliament, the number of both barristers and solicitors has fallen consistently at every election.
  Fiona Mactaggart: Am I not right in thinking that my hon. Friend is counting only lawyers who practise professionally, and that there are some 80 legally qualified
  308
  Members, including law lecturers and the like? Are not lawyers represented on a greater scale than any other profession?
  Mr. Kidney: I do not want to spend too much time discussing the composition of the House, but the figures that I have given, relating to the stated occupations of Members, come from the House of Commons Library and, in the case of earlier years, from research by Butler Election Studies. There are far more teachers and lecturers in the House—and the biggest group of all is made up of those whom some people nowadays sneeringly call professional politicians.
  All that is beside the point, however. Let me finish declaring my interest. As soon as I was elected, I stopped being a solicitor in my high street practice, believing that all my attention was required for this job—a belief that experience proved to be justified. The legal paperwork relating to my retirement has not been completed—why are these lawyers so slow?—and I technically still have an interest, including part-ownership of the buildings from which my practice worked. On the letterhead, I am now described as a non-practising consultant. However, I have done all I can to distance myself.
  Having said that, I want to defend lawyers from the other sweeping statement that is often made in the House: the one about fat cats. Of course there are some exceptionally well-paid lawyers. Some may be excessively well paid, but great talent attracts high pay, and in some cases, the demonstration of that talent is underpinned by the hard work that people have undertaken to get where they are. Overwhelmingly, in my view, and notwithstanding what my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) said about the examples of lawyers who have gone wrong, the legal profession is filled with hard-working, dedicated and extraordinarily honest people, most of whom are not extremely well paid.
  Figures given to me by the Law Society for 1997 show that the salary of a fully qualified lawyer in a firm deriving more than a quarter of its earnings from legal aid work is about £20,000 a year—a third less than that of an equally experienced lawyer in a firm doing no legal aid work at all. A salaried partner with 15 years' experience could expect to receive in gross pay less than the salary of a Member of the House of Commons.
  In that connection, I draw attention to a letter that I received from a practising solicitor in Stoke-on-Trent. He read the comments that I made in an article in The Lawyer, in which I stated light-heartedly that many Members of Parliament do not like lawyers and think that they are extremely wealthy. He asked me to inform my colleagues in the House that the average family solicitor in the provinces works just as hard as, if not harder than, the average Member of Parliament, and probably earns considerably less.
  In the brief time available, I shall make three points. The first has been covered by many other speakers—legal aid for personal injury cases. The second, which has been touched on by one or two other hon. Members, is the use of contracting for legal service provision. The third has just been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe)—the ring-fencing of funds for civil legal aid.
  On legal aid for personal injury cases, there has been a substantial growth in the use of conditional fee agreements since they were first made legal in 1995.

  309
  Now they are to cover all personal injury cases except medical negligence. The Bill makes the success fee and the premium recoverable, and allows the paying party to challenge the level of the success fee.
  All those are positive steps, but many hon. Members have been right to voice their concerns, and I add mine, about the danger that although the use of conditional fee agreements may extend access to justice to many people who were no longer eligible for legal aid, we may be letting people fall out at the bottom, if those who were certainly eligible to receive legal aid will now not receive it.
  I draw attention to the explanatory notes that accompany the Bill, especially paragraph 74, which states that
  "the Lord Chancellor may direct that for personal injury cases … funding should …be possible where exceptionally high investigative or overall costs are likely to be necessary, or where issues of wider public interest are involved."
  A direction can also be issued that, on the recommendation of the commission, an individual case should receive legal aid. Hon. Members are seeking an assurance from Ministers that people who, for whatever reason, cannot access a conditional fee agreement will have access to legal aid instead.
  Since 1995, 60,000 policies have been issued to cover after-the-event insurance allied to conditional fee agreements. To show the willingness of the Law Society and its members to co-operate in the use of conditional fee agreements and after-the-event insurance, five out of six of those policies are written by the accident line protect scheme set up jointly by the Law Society and Abbey Legal Protection. I believe that after-the-event insurance will grow and will be reliable, but hon. Members want an assurance that, at the beginning, legal aid will be the safety net.
  Secondly, on contracting for solicitors' legal services, it is right that we should insist on quality standards from those receiving public money to deliver legal services. The current Legal Aid Board standards relate to franchising, but there is no reason why they should be set in stone. The kite marking of the quality standard might change over time. More than 2,000 firms of solicitors are already franchised, and another 2,000 firms have applied to be franchised.
  Contracting will give the commission control over quality and cost, but it also has other responsibilities, such as ensuring that there is a national service that is accessible to all and that people have a reasonable choice of lawyers to carry out work for them. The Government are aware that some groups have special needs, such as people in rural or sparsely populated areas and ethnic minorities. I would hate legal aid deserts to develop where there is no access to legal aid through a solicitor's firm. However, I accept that the community legal service goes wider than delivering services through firms of solicitors. Others have referred to the patchy service from law centres. Staffordshire has a population of 1 million, but it has no law centre. Happily, the citizens advice bureaux are excellent and there is good co-operation in Stafford between them and solicitors in private practice, even to the extent of solicitors giving their time freely by rota to give legal advice to those who go to the citizens advice bureaux.
  310
  I do not agree with those who have argued for ring-fencing of advocacy money. However, we should consider the possibility of the expense on criminal case support exhausting the legal services budget, leaving no money for civil cases. It is right that criminal defence should come first and that it should continue to be demand led, so we must accept the possibility of an overspend on criminal defence work that could eat into the civil work budget. It is pretty far-fetched to suggest that that could exhaust the community legal service budget.
  Table 1B on page 70 of the excellent research paper produced by the House of Commons Library shows the expenditure year by year on civil and criminal legal aid. At 1997-98 prices, the total amount spent on civil legal aid in each of the six years since 1992 has exceeded the total spent on criminal legal aid in magistrates courts and Crown courts put together. Admittedly, there is a bit more expense on duty solicitor schemes, which are exclusively criminal work. Including that in the figures means that the total for civil legal aid is higher in four years out of six. It is far-fetched to suggest that the criminal budget will become so high overnight that it will eat up the civil budget. The ability to have more accurate forecasting and financial planning through contracting also reduces the risk of a surprise overspend in the criminal defence budget.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General may confirm that the Lord Chancellor's Department will maintain a contingency budget. Even the Treasury in its new public service agreements expects all Departments with their own budget to have a contingency budget. If the House sees a looming problem of the spending on criminal legal work exceeding the expected amount by more than is desirable, it will be up to us to put pressure on the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Treasury, which holds the purse strings.
  My impression from the pitifully few contributions by the Conservatives—truly this debate drives home the point that Labour is the party of law and order—is that they agree that our legal aid scheme, established in 1949, is admirable, but that, over time, it has not kept up with demands. The problems of growing expenditure have been met by a damping down of eligibility and by increasing the contributions that people have to make to their cases. Overwhelmingly, legal aid is available to the very poor only. The only other people who have access to justice are the very wealthy, who can afford to pay privately for a lawyer. The Conservatives appear to accept that something must be done and the final message that I take from their contributions is thank goodness that Labour has to do something about it rather than them, because the job is so difficult.
  I recognise that the Government have a difficult job to do. They have my support as long as they listen to the concerns that have been voiced in the House and try to meet them. I have seen the consultation that has already taken place. Ministers have listened to that consultation and made changes to their plans as a result, so I have every confidence that we shall end up with an Act that will be as good for the next 50 years as the Legal Aid and Advice Act 1949 was for 50 years.
  9 pm
  Mr. Keith Darvill: I declare an interest. I am a solicitor and a partner in a firm of solicitors. I was admitted to the roll of solicitors in January 1982 and I am

  311
  a member of the Law Society. I note the figures that my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) quoted about the number of solicitors in the House. In many ways, it is a pity that not more non-solicitors and lawyers are here to take part in the debate.
  I have practised in a medium in-house legal department, in a medium private general practice and, for a short time, as a self-practitioner, so I have a spread of experience in the sector. Some of the provisions of the Bill are, as the White Paper, "Modernising Justice" says, challenging to the legal profession. The profession must adapt to a modern and rapidly changing society to provide a better service and better justice for the public.
  In many ways, the profession is already doing that. The question is: has it done enough and can it do more without prejudicing the fundamental right of access to justice? It can do more without prejudicing individual rights, provided that the Bill is implemented sensitively and sensibly.
  I make the broad general point that access to justice needs reform. The need for change is undeniable. The legal aid system is more than 50 years old. During those 50 years, society has changed. Requirements for legal services have changed and, most relevant to the Bill, changes have been made to legal aid eligibility.
  As the ever useful House of Commons Library research paper shows, spending on civil legal aid increased over the years. By 1997–98, 54 per cent. of net legal aid spending—£634 million out of £1,177 million—was on civil, certificated legal aid. However, today, such legal aid accounts for less than 10 per cent. of the number of acts of assistance that are paid for. The reduction of certificated legal aid litigants is due mainly to the previous Government's policy of reducing eligibility.
  I broadly welcome the Bill. I have my reservations about some aspects of it, yet a good framework is proposed, which can be built on to establish more comprehensive provision of legal services to enhance and to expand access to justice.
  To a certain extent, the provision of public legal services is like that of health services: it will never be possible to provide for all the population's needs; in fact, it has never has been possible. In terms of short, medium and long-term planning, we should all come to terms with that fact. The services are, to a large extent, provided for defence in criminal prosecutions because of the threat to the individual's freedom following conviction, but they are also desirable in social areas, which the Minister and other hon. Members have outlined. Coming to terms with that state of affairs is part of the reason for the Bill.
  The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) touched on the matter and I agree with him. When I started to practise 20 years ago, private practice in local areas cross-subsidised legal services. For many reasons, that cross-subsidisation has changed. In the early days when I practised, non-contentious work was still based on scale fees. Those fees have been abolished. The economic realities of practice are that conveyancing work, for example, which in certain practices subsidised other civil litigation work, has reduced.
  Consumers benefited in that conveyancing fees were reduced, but the number of solicitors practising, and covering litigation in particular, decreased as a result. Indeed, in other areas, the market price for such services has driven down that potential. In some ways, that is sad, but that is unlikely ever to come back.
  312
  At the same time, there has been a massive expansion in civil legal aid, particularly in the divorce and matrimonial breakdown sector.
  I turn to the detailed provisions of the Bill. I shall begin with some comments about the community legal service, which in my view is the jewel in the crown. I warmly welcome the establishment of a community legal service, which will be the best feature of the Bill provided that funding is ensured, particularly early on. It will enable an expansion in the provision of advice and assistance to those in need of legal services for social welfare-related problems.
  I have worked with my local citizens advice bureau, which warmly welcomes the general concept. Voluntary services in law centres and elsewhere do an excellent job and the Bill will enhance their role as a result of the community legal service, regional planning and the block contract. It will make a real difference.
  The White Paper contains some interesting statistics about citizens advice bureaux around the country. There are 700 main CABs, 1,759 outlets, 800 independent centres and 53 law centres costing a total of £150 million. They represent excellent value for money.
  The Bill will also provide the opportunity to refocus legal aid spending, particularly in respect of welfare law, housing benefit and tribunals and enable more money to be targeted on the non-profit sector. In my view, the community legal service should be set up in tandem with the other reforms. The reforms are so fundamental that, as a quid pro quo as it were, the community legal service should be implemented at the same time. There may be winners and losers, but the winners will be the less well-off and those who are unable to make other provision for legal expenses.
  There is also another positive angle. The community legal service could develop a legal health check. Health insurance, car insurance and holiday insurance often include legal cover. Many households do not realise that they have cover for legal expenses. It would be useful for everyone to be able to have a legal health check. Such a scheme could be developed with the profession and with the insurance industry. It would plug many of the holes in provision that hon. Members have mentioned.
  I am concerned about the possible effects of the proposal on the civil budget in the absence of the CLS, particularly if the block contracting that is envisaged does not cover the whole country. We need to ensure that the Bill provides adequate cover. In some areas, there may not be many practices or sufficient cover in the voluntary sector. If there is patchy cover, some citizens may suffer as a result.
  I should like to make two more points before concluding my speech. The first relates to contracting. I can see the benefits of that in ensuring best value for the taxpayer. Although I am not arguing for the profession, if there is insufficient cover there will be difficulties. Solicitors' practices will need to invest in the provision of services and if there are limited contracts they may be unable to finance the necessary investment in premises, staff and so on. Some attempt must be made in the implementation of contracts to ensure smooth delivery of services.
  I should say that I am no great supporter of conditional fees. In many ways, I have been a purist on the subject. However, I have come to accept them, although I do so

  313
  with reservations. My reservations do not stem from the Bill, but from my experience in advice surgeries. Essentially because of lower eligibility levels, my constituents who come to see me in my advice surgeries support the idea of being able to use no win, no fee arrangements in pursuing their cases. There is popular demand for such arrangements. The House should therefore ensure that the Bill deals with the reservations about the arrangements that have been expressed in this debate.
  I agree with the Law Society that, for conditional fee arrangements to succeed, the insurance industry will have to play its role in providing products that complement the concept. There is evidence, which I welcome, that that is starting to happen. However, the market will have to develop further in the light of experience.
  I believe that the Government's proposals in the Bill will increase access to justice by making it easier for people to afford legal services, particularly with conditional fee agreements, and by providing funding for people who cannot afford to pay privately, thereby securing value for taxpayers' money and targeting available resources on the areas of greatest need and highest priority.
  I therefore support the Bill and oppose the Opposition's amendment.
  9.11 pm
  Mr. Gareth Thomas: At least two other Labour Members are anxious to speak in the debate, so I shall simply make some very brief comments.
  I declare an interest as a member of the Bar, and welcome the Bill. It is not a cost-cutting Bill, but a Bill which will control the spending of public money. The Government should not have to apologise for the need to refocus public money, to ensure that it is properly spent and put to good use where it is sorely needed. I welcome the fact that the Government have embarked on a programme of re-orienting the legal aid system, so that public money goes where it is needed—on matters such as welfare rights, housing rights and other vital community-based rights.
  Various speakers in the debate have made much of the fact that the Bill will remove legal aid for personal injury cases. I do not accept that that is a fatal flaw in the Bill. I believe that it is entirely realistic to expect conditional fee agreements to take over the role now played by legal aid. Although there is concern about that aspect of the Bill, equally, there has been concern about abuse of legal aid certificates. The sometimes very large contribution that litigants find attached to their legal aid certificates, and the issue of eligibility, are problems. There is also a problem with how to manage the legal aid system. The only solution offered by Conservative Members is further cuts in eligibility, which surely is not in the public interest.
  I was impressed by the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies). I, too, am uneasy about some aspects of the criminal defence service. I note that, in the other place, the Lord Chancellor attempted to allay such concerns by stating that the Government's intention was simply to use that service to fill in the gaps and to introduce some flexibility, and that
  314
  the Government's intention was to use independent private practitioners to do the bulk of criminal defence work. I should like the Government to give further assurances on that matter, as important constitutional principles are at stake.
  It is right that the profession should shoulder more of the burdens and risks of litigation. Money should be properly redirected and focused.
  I should like to hear more about how the community legal service will be established. I should like the Minister, in his reply, to say when the CLS will be established and how it will be funded. I should also like some assurances—as would other hon. Members—about how the civil legal aid budget will be protected as a consequence of the fact that, in many respects, it will have to be secondary to the criminal legal aid system. 1 should like some form of objects clause to be entrenched in the Bill. The Bill gives considerable discretion to the Lord Chancellor, and it is right and proper that the manner in which that discretion is exercised is limited and directed in the context of an objects clause.
  I am conscious that time is passing. I welcome the Bill, which surely will improve access to justice.
  9.15 pm
  Ms Hazel Blears: In the few minutes that are left to me, I wish to make a few points. Whatever the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Gamier) may have said at the outset about Orwellian language, it seems to me that the Bill is a huge step forward in increasing access to justice and equality. No doubt some will remain more equal than others; the rich and powerful have always had the advantage in our legal system. The more we as a Government can do to redress the balance and to improve access to justice for some of the poorer people in our communities, the better.
  The Bill is particularly relevant to people who live in communities such as mine in the inner cities. Not only are those people on low incomes but, in many cases, they are frightened of going to law. They are reluctant to enter a solicitor's office, which is a foreign world to them. They do not know the liabilities that they will incur. By creating the community legal service, we will open up the law to people who traditionally have been denied access. On that basis, I welcome the Bill.
  I declare an interest as a non-practising solicitor. However, that is a minority interest this evening, because my overriding interest is that of my constituents who, at long last, will have the access to justice that has been denied them for so many years.
  The Bill has been vociferously attacked, mainly by lawyers—some of whom have not liked the prospect of losing access to a fairly lucrative income stream. However, some have gone wildly over the top and have caricatured the Bill as an attack on the welfare state. Nothing could be further from the truth.
  The constituents whom I represent do not want expensive court-based solutions; they want good, quick and accurate advice. They want conciliation services, mediation and representation. They would like the legal problems not to occur in the first place, and they would like not be subject to an undue balance of power which means that they find it difficult to get redress.
  I do not know how much time the hon. and learned Member for Harborough has spent in inner-city advice agencies. If does spend time there, he will find that they

  315
  are run on a shoestring, and that they are full of hard-pressed staff who are struggling to cope. There are poor facilities, run-down buildings and difficult access for disabled people. The community legal service will improve all that, so that our advice agencies—at long last—are run in a reasonable manner so that people have dignity and equal access.
  We are proud of the legal aid system in this country, which has helped millions of people to obtain redress. However, in recent years, eligibility has been slashed, and the number of people assisted has fallen by 100,000 in the past five years. Under successive Tory Governments, the eligibility rules were squeezed so much that the system now can hardly be described as universal; in fact, less than a quarter of people are entitled to free representation. The service is struggling, and needs fundamental and radical reform.
  The Bill is not about cutting costs, but about shifting priorities. There will be a sea-change in the way in which we organise the legal service in this country. The Bill is about making the priorities housing, debt, welfare, employment and consumer issues—the crucial matters to my constituents. We are shifting the focus from money claims and negligence to matters such as whether a person has access to work, a roof over his head, personal security and freedom from crushing and crippling debt. These are the important issues to the people whom I represent, and the Bill will shift the focus of public expenditure to those areas.
  The Bill will make sure that we get value for money from our public expenditure. Why should public money be used to pursue cases that are not good enough to be funded privately? If there is a good case, it should be pursued, whether privately or publicly funded. The case against conditional fee agreements is not well made.
  By introducing the community legal service, the Bill will give access to justice to many of my constituents who have been denied it for years. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General takes into account the point that I made earlier—that access to justice must be local. Salford needs its own magistrates court. It is a different place from Manchester and, unfortunately, we have enough crime in Salford to fill our courts. I want to ensure that our city retains local access to justice. The magistrates are part of our community and they must be involved in the partnership to tackle crime and disorder and deliver justice locally.
  Provided that Ministers listen to that plea, I welcome the Bill and urge hon. Members to vote for it. I wish it godspeed.
  9.20 pm
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: It is a real pleasure to see love in the House. I saw the Minister looking into the eyes of the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears). After a long and weary debate—a very good one, in fact—he had at long last found an admirer, and he admired her in return. If only the world were as she thinks it.
  I, too, declare an interest, as I have been a barrister for 34 years. There have been many good speeches in the debate, from both Government and Opposition Members. The contribution of the hon. Member for Salford was doubly welcome to the Minister, because she will have noticed, as will everyone else who has sat through this
  316
  debate, that it was not until the ninth speaker rose that a single person other than the Minister spoke in favour of the Bill.
  That ninth speaker turned out to be the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Law Officers and to the Solicitor-General, who is to wind up the debate. We were delighted to hear from him. I was PPS to the Law Officers for a long time, and I did not speak in debates in which my Minister was speaking, but it is interesting to see how the conventions change, and it is always a pleasure to hear the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz).
  The problem with the Bill is not what it claims to be about but what it is likely to do in practice to our system of justice. If it were genuinely likely to increase access to justice, it would have our support but, in too many ways, as many Government and Opposition Members have said in thoughtful speeches, it does no such thing. Its title is a good example not of George Orwell's some being "more equal than others" but of his "Doublespeak".
  Let us consider the Lord Chancellor's proposals for legal aid. We can give one cheer for the setting up of the Legal Services Commission and the community legal service. There is a case for an overall body to examine and co-ordinate the provision of legal services. If and when we are permitted some detail on what those two bodies are expected to do—a fair point made by the hon. Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill)—we shall hope to be able to give them our support.
  Let us be clear that neither body will itself provide any legal services. Those will continue to be provided by barristers and solicitors; by law centres, whether funded by Government or by local authorities; by trade unions; and by the substantial network of voluntary services, including in particular the citizens advice bureaux.
  Some better co-ordination and some switch of funding will have merit, but there are serious questions about the provision of practical legal services to those currently obtaining civil legal aid, and especially those who have suffered personal injury. I tried earlier to attract the attention of the hon. Member for Salford, to say that, in summary, it is likely that the removal of civil legal aid from personal injury cases will leave a wide tranche of the more difficult, but none the less deserving, cases unprovided for. Solicitors and barristers will be unwilling to take on the risks, and the unfortunate victims will often be unable to afford the legal fees insurance necessary to cover the risk of having to pay the other side's costs, and they will be left unrepresented.
  I do not invite the Solicitor-General to listen only to me on this matter. Let him listen to the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), who is known for speaking his mind and has done so on this occasion on a matter on which he knows what he is talking about. Let him listen also to the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd), who is not a lawyer but who, as a non-professional, made a very thoughtful and knowledgeable speech expressing exactly the same concern: a concern also voiced by many others.
  The Lord Chancellor's idea is that the vast majority—indeed all deserving accident victims—will easily sign up to no win, no fee agreements. However, I draw on many noble and learned speakers from the other place, including many highly respected, public names on the Labour side, who have pointed out that, in practice, it is highly likely that only those cases that are near certain winners will obtain conditional fee agreements.

  317
  What about the increased costs? The second disadvantage of the system is that the lawyers representing a successful litigant are then entitled to an uplift of as much as 100 per cent. on top of their existing fees. The likely result is that access to justice will go down and the costs of justice will go up. Nor is a significant amount likely to be saved by that policy. Under the present legal aid system, the net cost of personal injury cases to the public purse is between only about £34 million and £37 million a year, plus a certain amount of the administration costs. It has been said that the amount is about £60 million, but it is unclear whether anything like that would be saved. We would agree that the money would be worth saving if a genuinely better system could be achieved, but that £37 million represents only a small percentage of the personal injury cases that receive legal aid. The vast majority of personal injury cases succeed and the Minister knows it; when the current Lord Chancellor was in opposition, he used the figure of 91 per cent. The policy has not been properly thought through.
  Ms Blears indicated dissent.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: The hon. Lady shakes her head, but she does not understand.
  In that context, I ask the Minister to clarify a statement made by the Lord Chancellor in The House Magazine of 15 March. In his beguiling but, I fear, misleading article, he stated
  "civil legal aid now costs the tax payer £800 million a year in lawyers fees."
  Could he please explain how that is made up? Presumably, it is not personal injury fees, as all but £34 million—or £37 million—are recovered. Does it refer to fees paid, for example, on judicial review cases? Does it include matrimonial cases or children's cases—which, as a result of the extended opportunity presented by us, constitute about 25 per cent. of those civil cases? If it does include all those matters, as I think that it does, are they no longer to receive support from legal aid? The notion that that money is there to be switched is a chimera; it is a fantasy. I should like the Minister to address that subject, because, if that money were taken away from those deserving causes, access to justice would be further reduced.
  As we are dealing with standards, I interpose a small but important point in respect of the scrivener notaries, who provide a highly specialised service in the City of London. They accept that their monopoly will be abolished. I see that the Minister is puckering up his face. If he listens for a moment, he will realise that I am making not a party political point but a serious point.
  The scrivener notaries provide a highly specialised service of a high standard in the City. After the abolition of their monopoly, they are concerned that the public should be aware, when they consult ordinary notaries—who have their purposes and functions—that they are not receiving the same experience and expertise that is provided by the scrivener notaries. That point will have to be dealt with in Committee, but I give notice of it. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Gamier) will follow it through. It merits careful thought.
  318
  My next question seeks clarification about the community legal service. As we know, the Lord Chancellor says that that service
  "lies at the heart of the Bill"
  and will provide
  "a comprehensive network of legal advice points across England and Wales"
  to the disadvantaged. If it does so, that is laudable, but at present there is a complete absence of detailed costings or of any detailed description of how that is to be achieved. That point has been made from both sides of the House.
  I have mentioned the £800 million, but it is not in place to be transferred. I fear that talk about the community legal service is another example of Government policy that is magnificent in aspiration but barren in execution. At best, it will provide a limited enhancement of services for one group of poor people at the expense of another, the future tranche of unfunded personal injury victims.
  Ms Blears: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has admitted that approximately £40 million could be saved from transferring personal injury cases to conditional fee agreements. Does he accept that that money could fund something like 200 to 300 law centres, dramatically improving legal services for people in deprived communities?
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: It would fund a lot of law centres if matters were as easy as that. However, the £40 million comes from the margin of between 5 and 10 per cent.—9 per cent. in the Lord Chancellor's view when he was in opposition—of cases. The hon. Lady started her professional life as a solicitor and she will know that to expect to be accurate in 90 per cent. of cases is to go beyond the bounds of credibility. I can see that reflected in the eye of every lawyer in the Chamber. We cannot have a system in which the funding is as accurate as that.
  Labour Members should remember that it is not only Conservatives who are critical of these ill-thought-out and flawed proposals. As I listened to the hon. Lady's speech, a recent letter to The Times came to mind. A very experienced solicitor whose name will be known to all lawyers—Mr. Benedict Birnberg—expressed the strongest reservations about this aspect of the Bill. We shall press in Committee and on Report for answers to our continually unanswered questions.
  On legal fees insurance, the Government rightly recognise that their plans for no win, no fee agreements will be in tatters until effective and affordable products are available to provide legal fees insurance for those whose cases are not successful. To date, adequate products simply have not been forthcoming. The Minister may frown at that, but, in February, Abbey Legal Protection suspended 30 firms from the Law Society's accident line scheme, which it runs. The managing director said that
  "they are entitled to go elsewhere—but they can forget premiums of £95 to £120."
  The Lord Chancellor's Department has mentioned 10 providers, but it turns out that they are mainly brokers, not companies, and the price of their products is either unclear or prohibitive. I tabled a parliamentary question to the Minister of State asking for more details of insurance products available and the conditional fee agreements. What I received by way of reply was not up to the hon. Gentleman's usual standard. He said:

  319
  "Insurance products to support the use of conditional fees are coming into the market regularly. I doubt that a comprehensive list of products exists or can be put together, given the vibrant and expanding nature of this market."—[Official Report, 30 March 1999; Vol. 328, c. 610]
  I have tabled a supplementary asking him to publish such details as are available to him. If the Solicitor-General cannot tell us—I do not expect him to—I shall look forward to the Minister's answer with great interest.
  What is to be the ambit of the criminal defence service, and to what extent will the Crown Prosecution Service be able to appear in the Crown courts? That is a matter of concern to many hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), the hon. and learned Member for Medway the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) and my hon. Friends the Members for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) and for Solihull (Mr. Taylor).
  We are worried because we have had no details. There has been some backtracking, but little forward explanation. Lack of detail and lack of coherent quality control on these issues led to the House of Lords voting down the Government' s proposals. Before the Government seek to steamroller them through this House, can the Solicitor-General or the Minister tell us how the criminal defence service is expected to work? How much funding will be applied to it, and how many lawyers are to be employed? We have little detail; the Government are asking for a blank cheque.
  The Bar Council has described the American experience of public defenders as "chilling", and there is little evidence that the introduction of such a body in Britain would be in the public interest, or save money—except to the detriment of justice.
  Mr. Hoon: The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned a point of detail, but he has much greater experience of this place than I do, and he knows that Second Readings are about principles. Will he tell us whether, in principle, he opposes the idea of there being provision to employ public defenders? What is his position in principle?
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: I shall not say, because the scheme is so vague. In a sense, the duty solicitor scheme is fairly close to a very simple form of such an arrangement. That is about as far as the Lord Chancellor has tiptoed—and I am in favour of the duty solicitor scheme, so there are some aspects of which I might be in favour.
  However, I remind the Minister that he has now been in government for two years, and the Lord Chancellor has been pontificating about such subjects all that time. If the two of them cannot come up with a bit of detail after two years, they do not know their business. That is what worries the House.
  If, as the Lord Chancellor has said, defendants would still be entitled to seek their own independent lawyer funded by legal aid, the system is unlikely to have much take-up. However, if it is Hobson's choice—public defender or nothing, with salaried Crown prosecutors also prosecuting cases—there must be a real risk, which has been recognised by Labour as well as by Conservative
  320
  Members, of hard-pressed state prosecutors getting together with equally hard-pressed state defenders and making plea bargains for the easy disposal of their cases.
  Dr. Lynda Clark rose—
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: Just a moment.
  That carries all the known risks of people being let off too lightly for serious crimes while others are bullied into pleading guilty to a less serious charge of which they are innocent, for fear of something worse if the case proceeds.
  Dr. Clark: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: I would, but I have only three minutes left. I apologise to the hon. and learned Lady.
  As 1 have said, in the Bill the Lord Chancellor is asking for a legislative blank cheque from start to finish. We welcome the fact that in the other place it was accepted that some of his direction-giving powers should be exercised only by statutory instrument, but the fact remains that we know little of the detail of the Legal Services Commission and little of the degree to which a salaried Crown Prosecution Service will take over Crown court work. Moreover, there is almost complete vagueness on the subject of the criminal defence service.
  I must mention the constitutional point, but, because of lack of time, I shall summarise it briefly. As the House knows, the background is that, until 1991, the professions of barrister and solicitor were independent and self-governing, subject only, in the case of solicitors, to the statutory framework of the Solicitors Act 1974.
  Under the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, lawyers came under the aegis of the Lord Chancellor, but he had to carry with him all four of the designated judges. That was going a little too far. We accept that the ACLEC system—the system involving the Advisory Committee on Legal Education and Conduct—was a little too stultifying, and we probably would have made some modifications in that direction ourselves.
  However, things are now going too far the other way. The Lord Chancellor should at least be prepared to share his power with the four senior judges. If he cannot carry at least two of them with him he should not have his way. The control of independent professions by a Government is not a model for a free society.
  In summary, the House will readily understand our reasoned amendment, although the Minister of State seems not to. I am grateful for the Liberal Democrats' support for it. The Bill reduces access to justice, increases the cost of justice, reduces the rights of citizens to an effective defence and gives the Lord Chancellor excessive powers over the independent legal professions. We await the answers from the Solicitor-General, but, unless he can show a genuine willingness by the Government to listen and to think again, we shall press our points home in the Division Lobby.
  9.39 pm
  The Solicitor-General (Mr. Ross Cranston): The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) started by saying that this has been a good debate. I agree. My hon. Friends participated

  321
  fully and vigorously and made many good points. Initially, we were disappointed because it looked as though the main Opposition party would field only two Back Benchers, but the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) was provoked into contributing, which we welcomed. We also had the benefit of hearing another talking Whip.
  Hon. Members of all parties acknowledged that change was necessary, so let me first try to address the puzzle that the main Opposition party is going to vote against the Bill. One reason given was the lack of consultation. My hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) and for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) nailed that one by mentioning the extensive consultation. The White Paper proposals resulted from 20 consultation papers and 12 research and pilot projects.
  The Opposition then focused their fire on conditional fees. Our changes to the concept of conditional fees increase access to justice by making the success fee and insurance premiums in no win, no fee cases recoverable from the losing party. That means that conditional fee agreements will be suitable for non-money and small money claims and that people of moderate, and even very small, means can use them without fear of having to face the uplift out of their own pockets or out of modest damages. On the extension of conditional fees, this will release legal aid money and allow us to concentrate it on the priority needs of less-well-off people in areas where private funding does not extend and to cases that raise matters of public interest.
  It is true that the Bill generally excludes legal aid from certain cases. Boundary disputes were raised by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). We have to prioritise and choose some cases over others. Generally speaking, we think that boundary disputes do not justify public expenditure. That contrasts with the previous Government, who, when they came under spending pressure, simply tightened financial eligibility across the board, a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill). The result was that a raft of people were excluded from legal assistance.
  Mr. Hawkins: The Solicitor-General is giving the impression that the only attacks on the Government's proposals came from Opposition Members. What about the savage criticisms of Labour supporters in another place that I and others mentioned? In this debate, Labour Members, such as the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), made similarly savagely criticisms of parts of the Bill. When will the Solicitor-General recognise that he is being attacked from behind as well?
  The Solicitor-General: On the whole, my hon. Friends welcome the Bill. I will come to some of the points raised. I hope that I am addressing some of their concerns.
  Let me make a further point about conditional fees in relation to uplift. Under our proposals, the uplift will be recoverable from the losing party. That means that losing parties will be much more willing to challenge the level of uplift than are successful parties at present. That will
  322
  put downward pressure on uplifts. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Dr. Clark) made the point that there is also control through taxation.
  Mr. Garnier: We shall not get to uplifts unless there is insurance available to underpin conditional fee agreements to start with. Where is that coming from?
  The Solicitor-General: I shall make the insurance point in relation to personal injury. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State said, the evidence is that insurers are coming forward. We hope that insurance will further develop. My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster mentioned insurance for a legal health check, and that would be welcome. Conditional fee agreements are taking off. There have been more than 50,000 claims taken with CFAs. The prophecies that they will not take off have not come to pass.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford spotted that the Bill contains a general power for the Lord Chancellor to make directions to allow some funding of personal injury. That being so, personal injury is not excluded from legal aid. The present intention is to use that power where the profile of a case may make it unsuitable for a particular arrangement, especially a case that has a high investigative or overall cost, or a wider public interest. That might cover the sort of cases raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway and my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd).
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway and the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), in quoting his solicitor constituent, made a point in favour of CFAs when they spoke about the great majority of cases being successful in terms of personal injury litigation. That is a double-edged argument. It supports rather than undermines the case for conditional fees in this area. As a footnote, the existing arrangements cost the taxpayer about £70 million a year. We argue that that money can be better spent elsewhere.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), with his enormous experience in this area of litigation, has few fears, and that gives me comfort. He also referred to an empirical study in February 1999. One has only to read local newspapers and notice boards in advice surgeries, for example, to see that lawyers are advertising their services under conditional fee agreements.
  Unlike the existing legal aid system, CFAs will discourage weak or trivial claims. My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster), with about 25 years of experience in legal aid, said that allowing people to pursue weak claims at no risk to themselves and denying their opponents their costs when they win—that has been the position under legal aid—is an abuse of the system.
  Concern has been expressed about the criminal defence service by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) and other hon. Friends, including my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway. In general, the CDS is a replacement for criminal legal aid. Its ambit is the same in that it is a mechanism for providing advice and assistance in criminal matters. However, we have

  323
  made it clear that we want a mixed system, with defendants able almost always to choose whether they want a self-employed lawyer or a salaried defender.
  Mr. Grieve: Will the Minister give way?
  The Solicitor-General: I have very limited time and there are many points to cover. I am sorry, but I cannot give way.
  With a mixed system, there is no danger of a wholly state-employed defender system. What is more, salaried defenders will be subject not only to the normal ethical codes, but, under the Bill, to duties to the courts and to their clients. I doubt whether a salaried lawyer in the public service is likely to come under more pressure than a solicitor employed by a private partnership, which is seeking quite properly to maximise its profits. As my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) pointed out, successful public defender systems operate in other jurisdictions.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) asked how the salaried defender system will work. We have included that power in the Bill, but we will take things very slowly. Before we take detailed practical decisions, we will consult interested parties. We expect to start small—for example, we might use a youth court—and we will certainly pilot the arrangements. I add as a footnote that we have no intention of abolishing the duty solicitor scheme, as one Opposition Member suggested. The Bill incorporates in primary legislation the duty solicitor scheme, which currently exists simply in regulations.
  As it stands, the Bill does not extend the rights of audience to lawyers employed in the Crown Prosecution Service. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) explained, the Government will seek to reinstate the clause that was originally in the Bill to allow suitably qualified lawyers employed in the CPS and elsewhere to exercise full rights of audience. I understand that we will have the support of the hon. Member for Solihull in our endeavours, which I welcome.
  We do not believe that employed lawyers are in some way ethically deficient by reason only of their employed status. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Pentlands pointed out, the Scottish system of advocates depute operates successfully. We value lawyers in public service. There is no statutory restriction on the exercise of rights of audience by crown prosecutors in the lower courts, so why should that bar operate at the higher level? The change is supported by the Lord Chief Justice.
  The rules of conduct and qualification regulations will remain in the first instance for the legal professional bodies to determine. The Lord Chancellor is taking a new power to call in rules: not generally, as the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Gamier) suggested, but only in respect of rules that unduly restrict the exercise of rights of audience and rights to conduct litigation. Moreover, the exercise of that power will be subject to affirmative approval by both Houses of Parliament.
  I come now to the community legal service, about which many of my hon. Friends—including my hon. Friends the Members for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) and
  324
  for Salford (Ms Blears)—spoke most eloquently. Our aim is to transform and rebalance legal services. There is much unmet need: new needs are always developing.
  Fiona Mactaggart: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the Human Rights Act 1998 can play a significant role in rebalancing legal and justice services in this country? Will he consider giving some responsibility under clause 9 to the community legal service to take in cases under that Act?
  The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend makes an important point about human rights. We have said that public interest cases will be addressed much more seriously under this Bill than they have been hitherto.
  The community legal service will provide help where there is no such assistance at present. It is a radical new approach. It will be flexible, it will work in partnership with funders and other providers of legal services, and will attempt to anticipate and respond to local needs.
  We intend to open up new avenues for justice. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East pointed out, competent legal advice can be provided by citizens advice bureaux and other advice centres. Courts are not the only way to solve problems, and the community legal service will improve access to information and advice. We anticipate that many people are likely to choose mediation.

  Several of my hon. Friends expressed concern about the balance between the community legal service and the criminal defence service. There is nothing in the Bill or in any administrative arrangement in government that requires an overspend by the CDS to be made good from the community legal service. There will not be an overall legal aid budget or cash limit.
  Both programmes, however, form part of the Lord Chancellor's departmental spending limit, along with other services such as the Court Service, including magistrates courts and other bodies. The Lord Chancellor would be in the same position as any other departmental spending Minister faced with a new pressure. His Cabinet colleagues would expect him to make every effort to offset the overspend by making savings elsewhere. The scope for covering a large criminal defence service overspend is limited because most of the community legal service budget would already be committed to funding payments contracts let in earlier years, so that issue is addressed by the funding system.
  I want briefly to mention ethical standards, to which the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) referred. I appreciate the concerns of other Opposition Members on that issue. The Bill does much to encourage high ethical standards. It puts lawyers' duty to behave ethically on a statutory basis and includes provision for a code of conduct for lawyers employed by the new criminal defence service. The legal services consultative panel will have a duty to assist in the maintenance and development of standards in the education, training and conduct of those offering legal services.
  Magistrates courts were mentioned by several hon. Members. The changes to those courts will allow local committees to work more effectively with other criminal justice agencies.
  I shall briefly mention some amendments that we intend to table. I shall disappoint my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon by telling him that there will be no

  325
  amendments to abolish silk. I can say no more about that as I have a conflict of interest. My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe) and the hon. and learned Member for Harborough raised the issue of the objectives clause. We intend to remove that clause, with the consent of the House, and are thinking of replacing it with a detailed objectives clause for the community legal service. We object to the clause because it expresses unrealistic aspirations, and it is better specifically to address the objectives of the community legal service and the criminal defence service.
  I conclude by saying that this is an essential package of reforms to the justice system. No one should doubt our commitment to maintaining traditional standards for lawyers. The Bill makes it clear that lawyers will continue to owe their first duty to the interests of justice. Our search for value for money will never be made at the expense of proper quality. Those who use our legal services deserve nothing less, as is obvious in the case of defendants accused of a crime or litigants seeking to assert or defend their rights through the courts. I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 159, Noes 338.

  Division No. 143]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Allan, Richard

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Amess, David

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Day, Stephen

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Duncan, Alan

  Baker, Norman

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Baldry, Tony

  Evans, Nigel

  Ballard, Jackie

  Faber, David

  Beggs, Roy

  Fabricant, Michael

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Fallon, Michael

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Bercow, John

  Flight, Howard

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Blunt, Crispin

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Gale, Roger

  Brady, Graham

  Garnier, Edward

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Gibb, Nick

  Brazier, Julian

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Green, Damian

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Greenway, John

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Burnett, John

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Burns, Simon

  Hammond, Philip

  Butterfill, John

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

  Harvey, Nick

  (NE Fife)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Cash, William

  Hayes, John

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  (Chipping Barnet)

  Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

  Chope, Christopher

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Clappison, James

  Horam John

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  (Rushcliffe)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Collins, Tim

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Colvin, Michael

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  326

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Sanders, Adrian

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Shepherd, Richard

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Simpson, Keith (Mid—Norfolk)

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

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

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Lansley, Andrew

  Spring, Richard

  Leigh, Edward

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Letwin, Oliver

  Steen, Anthony

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Streeter, Gary

  Lidington, David

  Stunell, Andrew

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Swayne, Desmond

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Syms, Robert

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Loughton, Tim

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Luff, Peter

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Townend, John

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Tredinnick, David

  Maples, John

  Trend, Michael

  Mates, Michael

  Tyler, Paul

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Moss, Malcolm

  Walter, Robert

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Wardle, Charles

  Norman, Archie

  Waterson, Nigel

  Oaten, Mark

  Wells, Bowen

  Öpik, Lembit

  Welsh, Andrew

  Ottaway, Richard

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Page, Richard

  Whittingdale, John

  Paice, James

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Paterson, Owen

  Wilkinson, John

  Pickles, Eric

  Willis, Phil

  Prior, David

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Rendel, David

  Yeo, Tim

  Robathan, Andrew

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Mr. Oliver Heald and

  Ruffley, David

  Mrs. Caroline Spelman.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Allen, Graham

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Burden, Richard

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Burgon, Colin

  Ashton, Joe

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Barnes, Harry

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Barron, Kevin

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Beard, Nigel

  Campbell—Savours, Dale

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Cann, Jamie

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Caplin, Ivor

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Casale, Roger

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Caton, Martin

  Benton, Joe

  Cawsey, Ian

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Berry, Roger

  Chaytor, David

  Best, Harold

  Clapham, Michael

  Betts, Clive

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Blackman, Liz

  Clark, Dr Lynda

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Boateng, Paul

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Borrow, David

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Clelland, David

  327

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Heppell, John

  Cohen, Harry

  Hesford, Stephen

  Colman, Tony

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Connarty, Michael

  Hill, Keith

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Corbett, Robin

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Hoey, Kate

  Cousins, Jim

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cox, Tom

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Cranston, Ross

  Hope, Phil

  Crausby, David

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Cummings, John

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  (Copeland)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Hutton, John

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Dalyell, Tam

  Illsley, Eric

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Darvill, Keith

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Davidson, Ian

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Denham, John

  Jones, Ms Jenny

  Dismore, Andrew

  (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Doran, Frank

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Dowd, Jim

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Edwards, Huw

  Khabra, Piara S

  Efford, Clive

  Kidney, David

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Fisher. Mark

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Flint, Caroline

  Laxton, Bob

  Flynn, Paul

  Lepper, David

  Follett, Barbara

  Leslie, Christopher

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Levitt, Tom

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Linton, Martin

  Fyfe, Maria

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Galloway, George

  Lock, David

  Gapes, Mike

  Love, Andrew

  Gardiner, Barry

  McAvoy, Thomas

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  McCabe, Steve

  Gerrard, Neil

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  (Makerfield)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Godsiff, Roger

  McDonnell, John

  Goggins, Paul

  McFall, John

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Mclsaac, Shona

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McNulty, Tony

  Grocott, Bruce

  MacShane, Denis

  Gunnell, John

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McWalter, Tony

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McWilliam, John

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Mallaber, Judy

  Healey, John

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Marek, Dr John

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  328

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Marshall—Andrews, Robert

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Martlew, Eric

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Maxton, John

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Meale, Alan

  Singh, Marsha

  Merron, Gillian

  Skinner, Dennis

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Miller, Andrew

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Snape, Peter

  Morley, Elliot

  Soley, Clive

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Mudie, George

  Spellar, John

  Mullin, Chris

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Norris, Dan

  Stevenson, George

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  O'Neill, Martin

  Stott, Roger

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  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)

  Plaskitt, James

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Pope, Greg

  Timms, Stephen

  Pound, Stephen

  Tipping, Paddy

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Todd, Mark

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Trickett, Jon

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Truswell, Paul

  Prescott, R Hon John

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Purchase, Ken

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Vaz, Keith

  Radice, Giles

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Rammell, Bill

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Rapson, Syd

  Wareing, Robert N

  Raynsford Nick

  White, Brain

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Reid,Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW))

  (Swansea W)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Rogers, Allan

  Winnick, David

  Rooker, Jeff

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Rooney, Terry

  Wise, Audrey

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Wood, Mike

  Roy, Frank

  Woolas, Phil

  Ruane, Chris

  Worthington, Tony

  Ruddock, Joan

  Wray, James

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Wyatt, Derek

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Sawford, Phil

  Jane Kennedy and

  Sedgemore, Brain

  Mr.David Jamieson.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No.62 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading):—
  The House divided: Ayes 335,Noes 156.

  Division No. 144]

  [10.13 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Crausby, David

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Allen, Graham

  Cummings, Jon

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  (Copeland)

  Ashton, Joe

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Curtis—Thomas,Mrs Clarie

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Dalyell, Tam

  Barnes, Harry

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Barron, Kevin

  Darvill, Keith

  Bayley, Hugh

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Beard, Nigel

  Davidson, Ian

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Dawson, Hilton

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Denham, John

  Benton, Joe

  Dismore, Andrew

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Dobbin, Jim

  Berry, Roger

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Best, Harold

  Doran, Frank

  Betts, Clive

  Dowd, Jim

  Blackman, Liz

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Blizzard, Bob

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Edwards, Huw

  Boateng, Paul

  Efford, Clive

  Borrow, David

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Fisher, Mark

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Flint, Caroline

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Flynn, Paul

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Follett, Barbara

  Burden, Richard

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Burgon, Colin

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Fyfe, Maria

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Galloway, George

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Gapes, Mike

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Campbell—Savours, Dale

  Gerrard, Neil

  Cann, Jamie

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Caplin, Ivor

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Casale, Roger

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Caton, Martin

  Godsiff, Roger

  Cawsey, Ian

  Goggins, Paul

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Chaytor, David

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Clapham, Michael

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Clark, Dr Lynda

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Gunnell, John

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Clelland, David

  Healey, John

  Coaker, Vernon

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Cohen, Harry

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Colman, Tony

  Heppell, John

  Connarty, Michael

  Hesford, stephen

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Corbett, Robin

  Hill, Keith

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cousins, Jim

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Cox, Tom

  Hoey, Kate

  Cranston, Ross

  Hood, Jimmy

  330

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Mitchell, Austin

  Hope, Phil

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Morley, Elliot

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Mudie, George

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Mullin, Chris

  Hutton, John

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Iddon, Dr Brain

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Illsley, Eric

  Norris, Dan

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  O'Brein, Mike (N Warks)

  Jenkins, Brain

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  O'Neil, Martin

  Johnson, Miss Melanie

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Pearson, Ian

  Jones, Ms Jenny

  Pendry, Tom

  (Wolverth'ton SW)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Pike, Peter L

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Plaskitt, James

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Pollard, Kerry

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Pope, Greg

  Keen, Ann Brentford & Isleworth)

  Pound, Stephen

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Kemp, Fraser

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Kidney, David

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Purchase, Ken

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Laxton, Bob

  Radice, Giles

  Lepper, David

  Rammell, Bill

  Leslie, Christopher

  Rapson, Syd

  Levitt, Tom

  Raynsford, Nick

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Linton, Martin

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Lock, David

  Rooker, Jeff

  Love, Andrew

  Rooney, Terry

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McCabe, Steve

  Roy, Frank

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Ruane, Chris

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  Ruddock, Joan

  (Makerfield)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  McDonnell, John

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  McFall, Jon

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Mclsaac, Shona

  Sawford, Phil

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Sedgemore, Brain

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Sheerman, Barry

  McNamara, Kevin

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McNulty, Tony

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  MacShane, Denis

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  McWalter, Tony

  Singh, Marsha

  McWilliam, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Marek, Dr John

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Martlew, Eric

  Snape, Peter

  Maxton, John

  Soley, Clive

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Meale, Alan

  Spellar, John

  Merron, Gillian

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Starkey,Dr Phyllis

  Miller, Andrew

  Steinberg, Gerry

  331

  Stevenson, George

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Vaz, Keith

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Ward, Ms Clarie

  Stott, Roger

  Wareing, Robert N

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  White, Brian

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Stringer, Graham

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  (Swansea W)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

  Winnick, David

  (Dewsbury)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Taylor, Ms Dart (Stockton S)

  Wise, Audrey

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Wood, Mike

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Woolas, Phil

  Timms, Stephen

  Worthington, Tony

  Tipping, Paddy

  Wray, James

  Todd, Mark

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Trickett, Jon

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Truswell, Paul

  Wyatt, Derek

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Jane Kennedy and

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Mr. David Jamieson.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Allan, Richard

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Amess, David

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Day, Stephen

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Duncan, Alan

  Baker, Norman

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Baldry, Tony

  Evans, Nigel

  Ballard, Jackie

  Faber, David

  Beggs, Roy

  Fabricant, Michael

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Fallon, Michael

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Bercow, John

  Flight, Howard

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Blunt, Crispin

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Gale, Roger

  Brady, Graham

  Garnier, Edward

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Gibb, Nick

  Brazier, Julian

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Green, Damian

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Greenway, John

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Burnett, John

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Burns, Simon

  Hammond, Philip

  Butterfill, John

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Cash, William

  Harvey, Nick

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Hawkins, Nick

  (Chipping Barnet)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Chope, Christopher

  Health, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Clappison, James

  Heathcoat—Amory,Rt Hon David

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Hogg,Rt Hon Douglas

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

  Horam, John

  (Rushcliffe)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Collins, Tim

  Hunter, Andrew

  Colvin, Michael

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Jenkin, Bernard

  332

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Sanders, Adrian

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Simpson, Keith (Mid—Norfolk)

  Kirkwood, Archy

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

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Spring, Richard

  Lansley, Andrew

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Leigh, Edward

  Steen, Anthony

  Letwin, Oliver

  Streeter, Gary

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Lidington, David

  Swayne, Desmond

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Syms, Robert

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Loughton, Tim

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Luff, Peter

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Townend, John

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Tredinnick, David

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Trend, Michael

  Maples, John

  Tyler, Paul

  Mates, Michael

  Tyrie, Andrew

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Walter, Robert

  Moss, Malcolm

  Wardle, Charles

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Waterson, Nigel

  Norman, Archie

  Wells, Bowen

  Oaten, Mark

  Welsh, Andrew

  Öpik,Lembit

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Ottaway, Richard

  Whittingdale, John

  Page, Richard

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Paice, James

  Wilkinson, John

  Paterson, Owen

  Willis, Phil

  Pickles, Eric

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Prior, David

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Yeo, Tim

  Rendel, David

  Young, Rt Hon sir George

  Robathan, Andrew

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Mrs. Caroline Spelman and

  Ruffley, David

  Mr. Oliver Heald.

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

  ACCESS TO JUSTICE BILL [LORDS] MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, Pursuant to Standing Order No.52 (1)(a),
  That, for the Purposes of any Act resulting from the Access to Justice Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise—
  (1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—
  (a) any expenditure incurred by a Minister of the Crown under the Act, and
  (b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums Payable out of such money under any other Act; and
  (2) the charging on, and Payment out of, the Consolidated Fund of the salaries of District Judges (Magistrates' Courts).—[Mr. Hill.]
  Question agreed to.

  Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill [Money]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill, it is expedient to authorise the remission of amounts recoverable under or by virtue of Part III of the Social Security Administration Act 1992.—[Mr. Hill.]
  10.27 pm
  Mr. Quentin Davies: The money resolution covers a matter which at first sight seems quite unexceptionable. In fact, it looks as though the Government have done something quite sensible and humane, but, after two years, we know the Government pretty well. We know that we have to get past the cosmetics and cut through the expensive public relations facade to get to what is really in their mind. Therefore, it is important that the House should look carefully at the proposal to see what it really means.
  One striking feature of the money resolution is that it refers to a new clause in the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill that applies only to decisions made before 1 June this year—some three months away. If the regime set out in the new clause is to apply indefinitely, why was the provision not drafted in such a way as to make it clear that it would be part of a permanent regime? If it is to be replaced by another regime, perhaps introduced in regulations—as the Government hope to give themselves extensive regulation-making powers and to ensure that regulations are introduced under the negative resolution procedure rather than the affirmative resolution procedure so that it will be more difficult for Parliament to give them scrutiny—we must be particularly wary about what is in their mind.
  Mr. Eric Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Is he telling the House that we are being asked to approve a money resolution before we know what form the Bill to which it refers will take? Is that what my hon. Friend is saying?
  Mr. Davies: My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. However, I hope that the House will not give the Government the Bill. It contains some extremely pernicious measures to means-test some fundamental contributory benefits. Those measures will be considered in Committee and I trust that with the benefit of the eloquence of myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), we shall succeed in persuading the Committee to throw out the clauses. I hope that, if we do not succeed in doing that, the House will turn down the Bill on Third Reading; and that, if it is not turned down then, it will be turned down in another place. I have no doubt that the Bill is far from a fait accompli.
  To the extent, however, that there exists a theoretical possibility that the Bill might be passed, it is very important for us to be absolutely clear about its purport; and, within that, about the potential effect of new clause 12, why the time period covered by the clause is so narrow, and the difference between the regime proposed for that particular period and the longer-term regime proposed by the Bill. [Interruption.]
  334
  I said that, at first sight, the measure seems to be sensible because the Government's intention seems to be to cease claiming back from recipients of disability-linked benefits—such as disability living allowance—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. There is far too much general conversation in the House. We are debating a serious matter, and the hon. Gentleman should be listened to carefully.
  Mr. Davies: I am afraid to say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that Labour Members are so intoxicated by their enormous majority and confident that they can get any rubbish through the House with absolutely no difficulty that Labour Members who do bother to turn up to debates in this place do not feel that it is necessary to take notice of the substance of the legislation being passed by the House. That is the very depressing current state of affairs in our country, although I trust that it will not last more than a year or two longer.
  I was explaining that the Government's intention, so far as one can glean it from their motion, is to cease trying to collect from recipients of disability-related benefits—such as DLA or the income replacement benefits—benefit that has been paid in respect of a period after which a recipient's condition improved to an extent that would have made him or her ineligible for that benefit or ineligible for that benefit at the rate at which he or she had been receiving it.
  Such action seems intrinsically to be sensible. It is extremely problematic to try to claw back from people, particularly disabled people, money that they had been receiving in good faith, on the grounds that, at a certain point, some event occurred or their condition improved so that they were no longer entitled to that benefit. It is even more problematic, if their condition seemed to improve between one review and another—which may be five years apart—to try to fix on an arbitrary date between those dates at which the improvement is supposed to have occurred and the benefit was no longer payable.
  My first question to the Government—I think that it is the first question that one should ask in a debate on a money resolution—is, "What are the financial consequences of the proposal?" What is the total amount of benefit that is now clawed back from beneficiaries for periods before a review at which a change in their condition was identified or registered? What is the amount that the Government will be sacrificing over the period for which new clause 12 will have effect?
  Secondly, of the benefit that is now being claimed back from such beneficiaries, how much has been received? Perhaps the Minister would like to tell the House how much—on an annual basis, in the past 12 months or previous 12-month period for which figures are available—was claimed in that way from beneficiaries in the category that 1 have defined, and how much was paid. Presumably, the gap has been or is being written off; we should know also that figure.
  I hope that the Minister has come to the House armed with the figures, as it would be very wrong to try to ask the House to pass a money resolution without telling hon. Members the money consequences of the measure proposed— [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already said to the House that far too many private conversations are taking place. The House now ought to listen to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Davies: Where amounts are claimed back from beneficiaries in the categories that I have described, are not paid and are written off, how are those write-offs accounted for? Are they accounted for as fraud? It occurred to me that one possible motive for this measure might be that the Government—who have abandoned Conservative policies that were designed to reduce fraud in the benefits system and have seriously cut back the effort started by the last Conservative Administration to pursue fraud—may think that there is an easy way of cooking the books.
  The Government might simply say that if they decide, under the money resolution, that the amounts that they are claiming back from people are no longer due from them because, retrospectively, the Government will leave the money legally in their hands—which is the effect of the new clause and the attached money resolution—that will mean that they can reduce by precisely that amount the outstanding estimated amount of fraud losses in the benefits system. That would have the entirely cosmetic and bogus effect of reducing current fraud losses to the Exchequer. We want to be certain before we consider passing the resolution that there is no threat of that.
  Mr. Edward Leigh: My hon. Friend and I are members of the Committee looking into the Bill. We have spent several weeks considering the Bill, and we have only one week to go. Would not it have been easier either to consider the matter before the Committee, or to wait another 10 days until we finished considering the Bill?
  Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend is right. The amendment was proposed six weeks after the Committee stage began, and an explanation of that is called for. Equally, the money resolution was sprung on the House after Easter. Once again, it looks as though there has been an element of disorganisation and indecision in the way in which the Labour Administration have handled the Bill.
  If the rules of relevance were not particularly strict on money resolutions, I would have liked to enlarge on the Bill, which is particularly pernicious. It is frightening to think that measures of such enormous importance to vulnerable people—extracting some £800 million in a full year from the disabled, for example, against their present entitlement—could be—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now starting to do what he said he was not going to do. I would he most grateful if he would stick to his original intention.
  Mr. Davies: I was going to link my remarks to the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) by saying that it is frightening that such a measure could be proposed by a Government who are capable of such an administrative shambles, as they evidently are.
  We must also consider the reviews that are referred to in the new clause, on the outcome of which the financial consequences of the clause will depend.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: My hon. Friend will be aware that the Rowntree Foundation produced a
  336
  report on the amount of money that was not being claimed because people were unaware of the benefits to which they were entitled. Does my hon. Friend believe, as I do, that the new clause will confuse that issue, rather than clarify it, as far as those people are concerned?
  Mr. Davies: One of the aspects of the Labour party's rhetoric in opposition during the last Parliament was that it was going to make sure that there was a better take-up of benefits by those who were entitled to them. Labour also had the temerity—I say "temerity" in the light of the fact that the Labour party has done nothing about it since coming to power—to say that it would be stricter on fraud. It is clear that Labour has run down the anti-fraud effort since it came to power. Nothing at all has been done to fulfil the legitimate expectations felt by so many people that there would be more effective targeting of benefits to those who are entitled to them.
  The whole of the provision is premised on the reviews. The Secretary of State said:
  "The review process will involve gathering information by postal inquiry and home visits".—[Official Report, 28 January 1999; Vol. 324, c. 321.]
  I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that the reviews referred to in new clause 12 are of that kind.
  Those reviews sound exactly like the reviews in the benefit integrity project, which the Government have denounced as unsuccessful. Indeed, the Social Security Committee also criticised them severely. We do not know whether the failure of the benefit integrity project resulted from its being misconceived by the previous Conservative Administration or from its being misapplied by the new Labour Administration, or whether it was sensible for that Administration to launch it if they had such serious doubts about it.
  I do not suppose that I can pursue those interesting questions now, but I hope that we can pursue them on another occasion. On the Government's own testimony, such reviews have not worked.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The money resolution is very tightly drawn and I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would stick to it fairly strictly.
  Mr. Davies: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but we need to know precisely what the financial consequences of new clause 12 are anticipated to be, and that will depend entirely on the outcome of the reviews, so we must be sure about the integrity and effectiveness of the review process. The reviews that the Government have in mind are exactly the kind of reviews carried out at home by administrative personnel from the Benefits Agency, or by postal inquiry, that Ministers have denounced as utterly ineffective in the benefit integrity project.
  That is not encouraging, but if the reviews are to be of a different kind, we had better know what the Government have in mind. Do they perhaps have in mind a very different kind of review as described in the Bill: the personal capability assessment in clause 50? Under clause 50(6), as I recall, the assessments can be repeated as often as the Secretary of State requires.
  The assessments have been sold by the Government as something akin to the all work test carried out by medical personnel: an entirely different approach to review. Which kind of review is foreseen in the new clause: the existing

  337
  benefit integrity project review carried out by administrative personnel; the personal capability assessment carried out by medical personnel; or a third kind of review?
  Is there a danger that disabled people will be subject to several different types of review under the different systems, or will certain people on certain benefits be subject to one type of review and others to another? That should not be the case, because new clause 12 makes it clear that all disability beneficiaries will be subject to review, so we had better know what the meaning of review is in that context. But how does that relate to personal capability assessments?
  New clause 12, to which the money resolution relates, refers specifically to disability living allowance, incapacity benefit and severe disablement allowance, but what about disability working allowance, industrial injuries disability benefit or the disability premiums in income support? What happens if someone still owes money from a previous review? Will there be an attempt to reclaim money or will people be told that, with effect from February of this year, they do not have to repay any money? Will DLA claims be dealt with on the same terms and subject to the same regime as beneficiaries of incapacity benefit or severe disablement allowance? Those questions must be answered.
  We need to know what the financial effects are. We do not merely want the final figure; it is important to know how it is made up. What are the total claims outstanding? How many of those have already been met by people paying in money that is due? How much is left and what is the difference? What amount would have to be written off if it were not for the provision that tells people that, retrospectively, they no longer have that liability? To what extent will the regime be continued after 1 June—the relevant date? What regime is foreseen after that date? What is the nature of the reviews that are referred to? How robust will they be? On the Government's own testimony, if they are of the benefit integrity project type, they will presumably not be very effective. If it is some other type of review, how will it differ from those reviews? What is the danger of the duplication of reviews, given that, at the same time, the Government are making provisions in the Bill for the personal capability assessment?
  I have repeated those questions deliberately, because we know that the Government like to avoid questions. They avoid the detail and think that they can get away with leaving the House with a glossy public relations story. They will not be able to get away with that—not tonight or on any other occasion, if we have anything to do with it.
  10.47 pm
  Mr. Eric Forth: I am not a member of the Standing Committee that is considering the Bill; nor am I a member of the Select Committee on Social Security. I am merely an average Back Bencher, who takes a bit of an interest in money resolutions. This money resolution takes the biscuit for a number of reasons. I shall follow the excellent questioning of the Government by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) with one or two modest questions.
  338
  Why did the Minister not seek to catch your eye at the beginning of the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to explain why we are debating a money resolution while the Bill is in Committee? Normally, money resolutions come to the House when a Bill has completed at least a significant part of its progress, so that the Government can tell the House what is in the resolution—how much money they are asking for, their estimate of the financial impact, and so on. That is the point of the exercise: the Government ask the House to authorise the money effects of a Bill.
  However, my lay reading of the process suggests that apparently this major Bill is in Standing Committee, still undergoing changes as it goes along. We have become used to the Labour Government amending their legislation on the trot, in an ill-considered way, and another example of that is now before us. The Government not only have the gall to bring a money resolution to the House during that process, but insult those of us who are in the Chamber and interested in the money resolution by failing to explain what it is about. I can only assume that they thought, in their usual arrogant way, that the House would nod through this money resolution without showing much interest in it. It will take us a while, but eventually we shall get through to the Government the fact that the House has a considerable interest in money resolutions, and that a number of Members want some answers before we will agree to the money resolution. Whether I divide the House on the resolution will depend on the quality and detail of the answers that we receive from the Minister, although I am beginning to wonder whether he does not merely complacently assume that we shall nod the resolution through without his explaining what it is about. That is the background to the process in which we are involved.
  We have had no indication of why the money resolution is before us. My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford, knowledgeable as ever, seemed to assume that he knew that it was about some new clause 12. I do not see how he draws that conclusion. I am sorry to disagree with my hon. Friend, and I rarely do. However, I read the resolution literally, and it contains the words:
  "for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill".
  The resolution is an open-ended, non-specific commitment which would give carte blanche to expenditure resulting from any changes to a Bill that is still in Standing Committee.
  My hon. Friend may think that the resolution is about some new clause 12. I do not see how that can be so. My reading is that the resolution is entirely non-specific. If the House were to pass it—and the more I hear myself speak, the more I believe that we would be rash to do so—we would have a completely open-ended commitment. My logic leads me to conclude that it might be unreasonable to expect the Minister to give us the figures asked for by my hon. Friend because the commitment is so open ended.
  The Government will be in something of a bind because of the wording of their resolution, which goes on, insolently, to say:
  "it is expedient to authorise".

  339
  I bet it is. Of course it is expedient to authorise expenditure if one is dealing with something of which one knows no details at all. The resolution is pretty impertinent stuff and we must know much more about it before we will be convinced.
  Mr. Fabricant: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Bill is a consequential one? Edmund Burke talked about the consequences of one Bill following from another. The point is? that the consequences of the resolution fall on a Bill that is still in Committee. Is it not almost unconstitutional, as Edmund Burke might have said, to discuss such a resolution tonight?
  Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend tempts me, as ever, but I have learned during my few years in the House to study the facial expression of the person occupying the Chair. Although your expression, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is close to inscrutability, I detect that if I were to engage in a dialogue with my hon. Friend about the views of Edmund Burke on the process in which we are engaged, you might take a dim view. Perhaps on another occasion my hon. Friend and I may discuss Burke. It might be a suitable subject for an Adjournment debate should my hon. Friend be able to win one.
  There is a serious point to discuss.
  Mr. Fabricant: Mine was a serious point.
  Mr. Forth: I know that it was, but I shall make a different serious point which I hope will pass the scrutiny of the Chair.
  How can we debate a money resolution while the Committee stage of a Bill continues? We do not know what the final form of the Bill will be. If, as my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford said, the Government have already tabled amendments to their own Bill, it is in the process of being altered as we speak. A money resolution is before us that relates to a Bill not yet in its final form. We cannot know what commitment we are being asked to underwrite.
  I do not know how the Minister will get out of that bind, and I shall sit down to let my hon. Friends speak and to allow the Minister time to explain, if he possibly can, what the resolution means and what money commitment the Government are asking for. If he can answer my and my hon. Friends' pertinent questions, we may be persuaded, but I have my doubts.
  10.54 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Stephen Timms): This is a straightforward matter that puts right a serious flaw in the legislation that we inherited from the previous Government. As the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) said, the money resolution relates to a proposed new clause in the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill. It provides that overpayments of benefit will not be recoverable from certain claimants where otherwise they would be.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Mr. Bayley), announced in response to a parliamentary question on 26 February that the Government would introduce that new clause. The reason was that monitoring by the chief adjudication officer of reviews of entitlement to disability
  340
  living allowance under the benefit integrity project, so disastrously designed by the previous Government, brought to our attention the fact that the rules on the recoverability of overpayments worked unfairly.
  The effect of the present law is that once it has been established that somebody is no longer entitled to the rate of benefit in payment, the Benefits Agency must also establish the date on which that change took effect. An overpayment has thus occurred, which may be recoverable. As a result, cases have been identified in which, although the current award of benefit is no longer correct and overpayments averaging £5,000 per person have occurred, it is not reasonable to expect that the claimant should have known that he or she should have reported something to the Benefits Agency.
  For example, let us take the case of Angela. She has been a wheelchair user since being injured in a road accident in 1993. She has adapted well to her condition, and her care needs have significantly reduced—partly because of rehabilitation and partly because of a series of adaptations to her home carried out over time, such as the widening of doors and the addition of ramps, a stair lift and a fully redesigned bathroom. Some of those were funded by her disability living allowance.
  Angela did not report any change in the level of help that she needed with personal care, and a recoverable overpayment arose as a result. Her current level of needs came to light during benefit integrity inquiries, but it was difficult to determine exactly when the change in her entitlement took place. It probably happened gradually.
  Neither Angela nor her family and friends can understand the basis of the overpayment decision, as she is still severely disabled. A reduction in her benefit is bad enough, but to present her with a bill for £5,000 or more for overpaid benefit in the past, when it is not reasonable to expect her to know that she should have notified the Benefits Agency, is simply not fair.
  Another case is that of Brian, who in 1992 was awarded DLA at the highest level for life because of a serious heart condition. In 1997, he underwent a successful heart transplant operation. He is required to adhere to a strict drug regime and his condition is closely monitored, but he has been able to manage his own needs, which are considerably reduced, since early 1998. His DLA entitlement is significantly reduced as a result.
  Brian still rightly regards himself as seriously disabled, and, again, it is difficult for him to recognise that he ought to have reported his improvement to the Benefits Agency. Not only would he have his benefit reduced or even removed, but the present law could require him to pay back all the benefit paid above the level of his new entitlement since the beginning of last year.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: If the Minister is so proud of the measure that he wants to read out a prepared presentation on it, I am surprised that he did not attempt to catch your eye in the first place, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, as he did not so, and he is now responding to a debate, would he be good enough to answer the precise questions that I asked him? All that he has done so far is to is to confirm to the House that my understanding of the purport of his money resolution and his new clause is correct.
  Mr. Timms: What the House will want the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends to say is whether they

  341
  wish to vote against the money resolution and continue to recover large sums from some of the most disadvantaged people in our society. People outside the House will watch with great interest how Opposition Members vote at the end of the debate.
  Angela and Brian, and many more like them, will benefit greatly from the change. They will no longer face the large bills for overpayment of benefit that the application of the present law would require.
  Mrs. Theresa May: If I read new clause 12 correctly, the people whose circumstances the Minister has described will not be affected, because the change relates only to decisions taken between 26 February and 1 June 1999. Will he address the precise point put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies)? He is setting out what many people would consider a reasonable proposal for a change, but it applies only to decisions made between 26 February and 1 June. What about decisions taken after 1 June?
  Mr. Timms: If the hon. Lady will be patient, I shall come to those points.
  As a result of the problems, on 25 February, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State issued an accounting officer direction to the chief executive of the Benefits Agency to ensure that no action to recover overpayments would be taken in cases involving a disability-related review of benefit entitlement. The new clause will mean that that direction is no longer required. The law will be brought into line with what most people think that it should be.
  There is a retrospective element to this much needed change, which is why we need primary legislation in the new clause. From 1 June, it will be possible to resolve this through regulation. That is what we will do. The action involves writing off overpayments that claimants would in some cases have been required to repay and which could have totalled £15 million. It is right for Parliament to have the opportunity to debate this action and give it proper approval. I hope and anticipate that across the House, hon. Members will agree that this is the right thing to do.
  I emphasise that the new inquiry arrangements replace the benefit integrity project which, with its disastrous design flaws, was introduced by the previous Government. We are scrapping that. The new arrangements will keep a close eye on changes in circumstances to spot unreported changes as soon as possible. The new clause does not affect recovery of overpayments in any case where a person has been convicted of a criminal offence or agreed to pay a penalty as an alternative to prosecution in connection with overpayment of benefit, or where deliberate fraud has been established.
  The comments of the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford on fraud were utterly wrong. The previous Government's practice was to make heroic statements about fraud and do nothing. Fraud went through the roof
  342
  under their stewardship. For the first time, we have a credible strategy for tackling it that we are putting into effect. Fraud will be reduced as a result.
  Mr. Fabricant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Timms: No.
  Mr. Quentin Davies rose—
  Mr. Timms: The House has a simple choice tonight. Does it wish to recover unfairly very large sums of money from some of the most disabled people in our society? The figure involved is £15 million. The choice is clear. I urge the House to support the money resolution.
  11.2 pm
  Mr. Edward Leigh: It is a great pity that the Minister chose not to make that speech at the beginning of the debate. He outlined the reasons why the Government think that new clause 12 is satisfactory. It may well be, but, if Parliament is to mean anything, it is incumbent on the Government to come here, explain matters, introduce a clause, allow the Opposition spokesman to question the Government and allow Back Benchers to take part in the debate, and on the Minister to reply to points raised by the Opposition spokesman.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) asked a series of questions, including an interesting one about how much money will be saved by the measure. I suspect that the Minister gave no answer because I doubt whether the Benefits Agency has been pursuing people in the way that he described. It is probable that little money is being saved. If I am wrong, as I may well be because I am not in receipt of the briefing available to him, he can put me right, as he could have put my hon. Friend right.
  This is clearly an important matter. We are dealing with people who are disadvantaged and disabled, yet the Government apparently hoped that the resolution would go through on the nod late at night, without debate. It was left to my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford to raise the matter on behalf of Parliament. Why are the Government introducing new clause 12 in this way in the middle of the Committee proceedings? If this is such an important issue, why were they not better in control of the administrative machine to ensure that the proposal was in the Bill presented to the Committee at the start of our proceedings?
  The debate is necessary because on this issue the Government are in a shambles. The way in which they are conducting themselves tonight is an object lesson on how they live from day to day and from hand to mouth while important issues are rushed through the House. Thank God that we have a vigorous Opposition Front-Bench team who are prepared to put the Government on the spot.
  11.5 pm
  Mr. Eric Pickles: I shall make a brief intervention to give the Minister an opportunity to clarify the £15 million figure. Is it the amount that is outstanding, to be recovered or to be forgiven under the Government's proposals? Surely these are reasonable questions and surely it is reasonable for the Minister to

  343
  provide clarification. If the Minister wants to ensure that he receives all-party support for the Government's proposals, he must persuade us that they are worthy of support. If he wishes to do so, I shall be happy to give way. It is obvious that he does not wish to answer my questions.
  It seems that the £15 million is a red herring. We have a right to know what the Government propose. Is the sum of £15 million outstanding, to be recovered or to be written off? This is—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I say to Members on the Opposition Front Bench that I must have good order. Only one Member can address the House at any one time.
  Mr. Pickles: I do not understand why the Minister is refusing to answer simple questions. I shall be happy to give way to him.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Has the hon. Gentleman come to the end of his contribution? If he has, I call the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May)
  11.6 pm
  Mrs. Theresa May: I suggest to my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) that the Minister is refusing to answer his pertinent questions because the Government do not know what the implications of new clause 12 will be. The new clause covers a period when some of the decisions to which it refers will have been taken under the benefit integrity project, while others will have been taken under the new review proposals that the Government have announced to replace the benefit integrity project, which came into effect on 1 April. Details of the proposals have not yet properly been revealed to the House.
  The Minister has failed to answer the question put to him during the most recent Social Security Question Time about the number of reviews that are likely to take place under the new system. The letter that the Minister says that the Secretary of State sent to hon. Members suggests that there will be more reviews in future, which means that the money implications could be greater in future.
  I pick the Minister up on his response, or lack of response, to my earlier intervention about the period to which new clause 12 pertains, which is the limited period between 26 February and 1 June. The Minister said that the only reason for the new clause was that the primary legislation related to retrospective legislation as opposed to future legislation. The Minister made a case for the Government's proposals to change the way in which the overpayment is calculated. If he believes that they set out the way in which disabled people's overpayments should be calculated in future—from the date of the review and not from the date when their conditions change—surely he should pledge to the House now that he will introduce such a measure post 1 June 1999, rather than a measure for a limited period.
  The occupants of the Government Front Bench are nodding, but the Minister said that the Government's proposals would be introduced by regulation. What comfort can disabled people take from this Government, who operated the benefit integrity project for two years, when case after case was being brought to them by
  344
  hon. Members on both sides of the House and from another place about the hardship that was being introduced to people's lives as a result of their operation of it? What comfort can disabled people take from a wave of the Minister's hand to the effect that he will introduce regulations? If he believes in what he has said tonight, he should be introducing the proposed changes under primary legislation and not leaving them to regulations down the line, which could very well vary from what he is proposing tonight.
  11.10 pm
  Mr. Timms: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have listened to Opposition Members' cynical outrage. I have already provided the assurance that the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) seeks. As I said, the regulations will be introduced to change the position from 1 June.
  The £15 million is benefit that was paid to disabled people prior to their benefit integrity project reassessments and which, under existing law, should be recovered from them. The question is: does the House wish to go ahead and recover that £15 million? [Interruption.] I put it to the House that it would be unfair to disabled people and utterly wrong if Opposition Members were to insist on recovering £15 million from large numbers of disabled people who received that benefit—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have said that only one contribution can be made at any given time.
  Mr. Timms: Disabled people received that benefit in good faith and had no reason to believe that they should have reported to the Benefits Agency a change in their circumstances. Are Opposition Members insisting that the Benefits Agency should demand large sums of money—£5,000 per head on average and substantially more in several cases—from people who depend on benefit for their existence? We believe that that would be utterly unfair and wrong. We are introducing these measures and the new clause to change the position, and to make the law fair for disabled people. We are doing that across the system, and that is what we are doing with the new clause and the money resolution. We need a money resolution—
  It being three quarters of an hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(b) (Money resolutions and Ways and Means resolutions in connection with Bills).
  Question agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill, it is expedient to authorise the remission of amounts recoverable under or by virtue of Part III of the Social Security Administration Act 1992.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
  Ordered,
  That the Medicines (Advertising and Monitoring of Advertising) Amendment Regulations 1999 be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.
  That the draft Code of Practice on School Admissions be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

  Bahamas (Murder of British Citizens)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
  11.12 pm
  Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome): I am grateful for this opportunity to raise a tragic matter concerning the circumstances and subsequent investigation of the death of a British citizen, Carole Leach, in the Bahamas nearly two years ago. It is not a matter of general application: it has no great policy ramifications and I hope that it will not affect our generally good relationship with the Bahamas. Indeed, the matter affects few people directly: just one family, the friends of Carole Leach and particularly her mother, Mrs. Eve Gamson, who lives in Coleford in Somerset and is therefore my constituent. I have been in contact with her for the past 18 months.
  I say from the outset that I do not criticise the performance of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on behalf of Mrs. Gamson and in responding to the points that I have put to it. On the contrary, the British High Commissioner in Nassau, Mr. Peter Young, has been extraordinarily helpful. Mrs. Gamson and I are grateful for his assistance and for that of his staff in the high commission. That co-operation has extended to the Caribbean desk in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Baroness Symons, who has responsibility for this area.
  I also thank the Bahamian High Commissioner, His Excellency Mr. Arthur Foulkes, for his significant efforts on our behalf. He has been consistently courteous and helpful to the extent of his powers in London in expediting requests to the Bahamian Government and in assisting Mrs. Gamson and me when we have contacted him.
  Mrs. Gamson has, however, faced delay, uncertainty, confusion, lack of communication, considerable personal anguish and expense and continuing disappointment since the tragic loss of her daughter in August 1997, nearly two years ago.
  It may be helpful to the House if I set out the sequence of events. Carole was a teacher, aged 37. She lived and worked in Rock Sound, in Eleuthera in the Bahamas. She was a popular member of the local community. She taught at the Green Castle all-age school. By all accounts, she loved the island and its people and had many friends in the local community. If there was one small upset in her life at that time, it was that for some months in 1997, she was troubled by what she termed strange phone calls. There was heavy breathing, the telephone receiver was replaced and then there was a repeat call. She was sufficiently concerned by that to tell her mother in England about it when she talked to her, as she regularly did, and to say that it was causing her some worry.
  On 22 August 1997, Mrs. Gamson, who had recently seen her daughter in America, tried to phone her in the Bahamas but got through only to her answering machine. The following day, she received a call from Mr. Michael Saunders, a friend of the family, to tell her that her daughter had been found dead. Carole Leach had been battered around the head by a blunt instrument. It is believed that it may have been the blunt end of a machete. Her body was clothed only in a blood-soaked tee-shirt. She had been brutally murdered.

  347
  What followed was, I fear, not a good advertisement for the investigative procedures of the Royal Bahamian police or for the sensitivity or efficiency of the coroner's court in the Bahamas. The initial investigation left much to be desired. It would be inappropriate for me to list here the apparent deficiencies of the police findings, but many of the investigations that we might expect to have been carried out at the time—they would have been part of standard police procedures in this country and many others—were conducted unsatisfactorily, or not at all.
  For example, simple checks might have been carried out on the circumstances in which the body was found and to find out what Carole's movements had been on the day and why her car door was open. She kept a spare set of keys in the car port or the car. Who knew that? Who might have been a suspect? What alibis were available? Was her car seen at the house during the day? None of those questions was answered by the police investigation at the time.
  The autopsy report was equally unhelpful. First, it was not made available to Mrs. Gamson for some considerable time. Indeed, we had a prolonged correspondence to try to secure the autopsy results. When that report arrived, Mrs. Gamson immediately realised that it was littered with obvious errors and that there were clear doubts about its accuracy. The time of death was not clearly identified. Carole's height was stated as 5 ft 4.5 in; she was 5 ft 2 in tall. Her hair was stated as being light brown; she had dark brown hair. No surgical scars were noted; Carole had a scar on her left ring finger and the removal of a lump from her breast had left a scar. The samples that were taken were not satisfactory for the purposes of forensic investigation.
  There were doubts about the investigation and the autopsy.
  Mrs. Gamson was then in the difficult position of being obliged to plead for information about the inquest and the coroner's procedure, but found that her way was blocked several times. She was so alarmed by the lack of progress in the police investigation that friends provided her with $10,000, which was available as a reward. That was later doubled by the Royal Bahamian police. Mrs. Gamson herself produced posters, which were placed around the vicinity of the community to publicise that reward. As far as can be determined, neither the local police nor the authorities attempted to offer that reward and publicise its existence.
  The coroner's inquest was delayed for many months. It was eventually convened on 25 May. Mrs. Gamson, who is a pensioner living in my constituency, found the money to travel to the Bahamas to attend the inquest. The inquest convened on 25 May. It was adjourned on 28 May until 9 June. On 9 June, Mrs. Gamson returned for the reconvened inquest, only to see it again adjourned on 12 June until 25 June. She was due to return for a further visit to the Bahamas on 25 June, but the previous day she was informed by the British high commission that the inquest had been adjourned indefinitely.
  In August 1998, there were new and tragic developments. On Paradise island in the Bahamas, two young women were found murdered—a Briton, Joanne Clarke, and an American, Lori Fogleman. They were tourists, found murdered on the beach. This time, there was a more immediate response. The Bahamian
  348
  authorities immediately offered a reward of $100,000. The Prime Minister of the Bahamas became personally involved.
  Mrs. Gamson noted how the response to those later murders differed from the response to the murder of her daughter. She had to ask herself why there was such a difference in the speed of response, in the appropriate response by the Prime Minister, and in the amount offered as a reward. She suspected that it had something to do with the £300 million development of tourism facilities on Paradise island, and the effect that that potentially had on the Bahamian tourism industry—a fact that is, of course, strenuously denied by the Bahamian Government and by the high commissioner.
  However, those further murders led to a temporary improvement in the circumstances. The Prime Minister's involvement brought in police experts from Scotland Yard and from the Federal Bureau of Investigation. I understand that, at the specific request of the British high commissioner, their remit included the previous murders of British subjects in the Bahamas, including that of Carole Leach. Detective Superintendent Morris was sent from Scotland Yard to conduct investigations and to support the Royal Bahamian police. He did an excellent job, carrying out investigations. He kept very much in touch with Mrs. Gamson, whom he interviewed, and has kept in touch with her since. I am grateful to him for that.
  In December 1998, the inquest was resumed. Mrs. Gamson was told, at very short notice, by the Bahamian high commission in London; indeed, her ticket to the Bahamas was paid for by the Bahamian Government, so there was a substantial change in attitude, and a very supportive position at that time. That inquest concluded with the arrest of a Mr. Dallas Murray, a Canadian citizen domiciled in the Bahamas, and it concluded with the view that a suspect had been arrested. Subsequently, a further suspect, who was considered to be an accomplice, a Mr. Sydney Pyfrom—a local resident, a Bahamian—was arrested and also held in custody.
  At that point, Mrs. Gamson thought that at last her efforts to maintain pressure on the authorities in the Bahamas had borne fruit, and that she was to have an adequate answer to the mystery of her daughter's death. Sadly, a few weeks ago, both men were released without charge; she was advised that that was the result of a lack of evidence.
  The question that then arises is, what happens now? What support can be given to Mrs. Gamson in her quest for justice following her daughter's death? She feels very much that she is back to square one—that, after nearly two years, she is no nearer to finding out what happened to her daughter and who is responsible for her death. What more can the British high commission do to put pressure on the authorities in the Bahamas to maintain the speed and effectiveness of their investigation? What more can be done to persuade them to look at the findings of previous investigations, and to explore areas to which they may not have devoted adequate attention?
  What has happened to suspects who have now been released? Do they still have their passports? Under Bahamian law, is there any possibility that their passports have been surrendered? If not, is it possible that they have left the Bahamas and, in the event of their remaining suspects and if further evidence comes to light, they will escape being brought to court? What further support can

  349
  the British police provide? Can Detective Superintendent Morris be brought back into the investigations, and, if so, what role could he play? Have Ministers any ways, either via the Commonwealth or via bilateral links with the Bahamian Government—or by other means—of putting pressure on the authorities to provide some of the answers?
  Perhaps the most distressing aspect of the whole sad catalogue of events, as far as Mrs. Gamson is concerned, is this. Although, as I have said, Mrs. Gamson has been well served by the British consular authorities and the Bahamian high commissioner here in London, at no time has she been contacted directly by the Royal Bahamian police, and at no time has the coroner had adequate contact with her. She has undertaken repeated and very expensive journeys to the Bahamas simply to try to maintain some sort of progress—trips that she can ill afford in her present circumstances. Surely the least that she should be able to expect from a friendly Government is a constructive relationship with the police authorities that are carrying out the investigation.
  My principal reason for calling the debate is to highlight the circumstances of this episode, and to ensure that Mrs. Gamson is aware that some people are concerned about the fate of her daughter and want to ensure that the perpetrators of this ghastly crime are brought to justice. Those people want to ensure that the case is kept in the public eye, and that whatever action we can take as Members of Parliament, Ministers or officials in the responsible Departments is taken to maintain the pressure and the progress. The fear that Mrs. Gamson and I share is that the release of the suspects in the early part of this year represents an end to the investigation, rather than a renewed investigation, of the circumstances of Carole's death. That, I think, would be unacceptable to her, to her immediate family and to her friends, and I think it should be unacceptable to Members of Parliament.
  11.29 pm
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd)The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), not only for bringing the matter to our attention but for saying what he has said.
  We must all agree that even the contemplation of the death of a child is momentous for any parent, and that to experience that is traumatic. If the death is a result of murder—and murder of this kind, such a long way away—that adds to the agony. The House shares the strong sentiments expressed by the hon. Gentleman and his support for his constituent—not as a constituent, but as a mother bereaved. I place on record my respect for his strong commitment to Mrs. Gamson's concerns.
  I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the tribute that he paid to the work of the Foreign Office and especially of the high commissioner in the Bahamas. The hon. Gentleman was gracious but accurate in his comments about the high commissioner of the Bahamas in Britain, Mr. Foulkes, whom I know well and for whom I have considerable respect.
  Let me put matters in context. Since the independence of the Bahamas in 1973, there have been 10 murders of British citizens on the islands. I shall not chronicle details
  350
  of them all, except to say that, of those 10 murders, seven were successfully investigated, leading to the prosecution and conviction of those responsible. I shall of course comment on the case of Carole Leach. As the hon. Gentleman compared that with the case of Joanne Clarke, it may be helpful if I say something about that murder and the investigation of it.
  As the House has heard, Carole Leach, who had been resident in the Bahamas for six years, was murdered at her home on 22 August 1997. She died from a blow to the head. The CID of the Royal Bahamian police force responded immediately. A reward of US$10,000 for information was offered by a friend of the family. That sum was matched by a further $10,000 reward by the local police. Our high commissioner began to push the commissioner of police for an inquest as early as October 1997, as he clearly thought that the process should be speeded up.
  The inquest began only on 3 February 1998, six months after the murder. As the hon. Gentleman told the House, the inquest was adjourned several times before its completion in December 1998. I must place on record my enormous sympathy with Mrs. Gamson over the length of time taken by the coroner to complete the inquest, which we are led to believe was delayed pending the results of forensic tests that were conducted in Miami.
  That raises the question of why the tests took so long to complete. The length of time is not acceptable, and I can offer Mrs. Gamson no words that would make her feel that that was anything other than a remarkably extended period, which did nothing to assuage her doubts and concerns about the intent of the authorities to bring matters to a conclusion.
  On completion of the inquest, two men were charged with the murder. They were subsequently released when the ruling of the coroner was quashed by the Supreme Court judge. I am told that the Bahamian police are continuing their investigations of the two men, but I cannot give the House any information with respect to their passports or their ability to leave the Bahamas, where their prosecution could successfully take place.
  On the first anniversary of Carole Leach's murder, the bodies of Joanne Clarke and Lori Fogelman were found in bushes on the edge of a beach on Paradise island. Those deaths received extensive publicity in the United Kingdom and the United States. The Bahamian Prime Minister held a press conference and the police put up a reward of $100,000 for information about the killer. For the first time—I stress this to the House—the Bahamian authorities asked for assistance from New Scotland Yard and the FBI.
  One of the victims of the second murders was an American citizen. A specialist forensic pathologist was flown out from the United States to assist with the autopsies. Detective Superintendent Brian Morris from New Scotland Yard flew out to assist the Bahamian police with their investigations. In September 1998, less than one month after the bodies were found, Tennel McIntosh, a Bahamian, was arrested and charged with the murder of the two women. He has since been committed for trial at the supreme court. I understand that the case is likely to be heard in June or July of this year.
  I assure the House that our high commission to the Bahamas in Nassau has been closely involved with all the cases. Our high commissioner and his deputy have

  351
  maintained good working relationships and had good co-operation with the commissioner of police and senior members of his force.
  We have been in regular correspondence with the families through our high commission in the Bahamas and the consular division in London. We have been on hand to assist the families with their visits to the islands and helped with the identification and repatriation of the deceased. We have discussed the details of the investigations with the families, keeping them updated, and have provided copies of all police reports that were available to us when requested. More recently, the high commission staff have helped with the visits of the officer from New Scotland Yard. In addition, the high commissioner and his deputy have pressed the local authorities to bring the investigation to a conclusion as rapidly as possible, and, as in the case of Carole Leach, have pressed for an inquest. I give an unconditional guarantee to the hon. Gentleman and to Mrs. Gamson that the pressure from our representatives will continue.
  The role of consular officers in cases of violent deaths overseas is to help the next of kin at the time of great distress. They provide advice and sometimes practical help, such as advising on the cost of the practical and necessary but rather tragic details of local burial or cremation and transport of the remains and personal property back to the UK. They can also provide a list of local funeral directors and help transfer money from friends and relatives in the UK to help pay costs. Where there is evidence of suspicious circumstances, they have pressed for investigations by local authorities and for results. We have two UK-based staff. Both they and the work is fully covered.
  The criminal investigation is a matter for the Royal Bahamian police force. Like most police forces, it has a heavy work load, with only 2,200 officers at its disposal to cover 29 inhabited islands. We have made offers of assistance to the Bahamian police force in the past, including for the investigation of the murder of Carole Leach. In a meeting with the deputy commissioner of police, the high commissioner made it clear that the assistance of the Dependent Territories Regional Criminal Intelligence Service would be made available for the investigation of the murder of Carole Leach should the Bahamian police wish. The deputy commissioner of police did not take up this offer.
  The House will appreciate that we cannot participate in a police investigation in another country unless we are specifically invited to do so. We welcomed the decision to allow a member of New Scotland Yard to join forces with the Bahamian CID, in a purely advisory capacity, in the investigation into the murder of Joanne Clarke. I think that Mrs. Gamson already knows, but it is important to put it on record, that we also requested that our officers be allowed to work on the murder of Carole Leach and the unrelated case of Jonathon Porton. The authorities in the Bahamas agreed to that.
  352
  Detective Superintendent Brian Morris, the officer from New Scotland Yard, visited the site of Carole Leach's murder. He was also given access to the case files of Carole Leach and Jonathon Porton and discussed both cases with the Royal Bahamian police. He has since been involved in facilitating the Bahamian authorities' request for evidence from the UK and has supplied specialist assistance.
  Again, I was grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his tribute to the work of Detective Superintendent Morris. As he recognised, Detective Superintendent Morris has personally tried to keep in touch with Mrs. Gamson to keep her fully informed of not only his role, but the way in which the investigation was being conducted.
  Detective Superintendent Morris paid a second visit to the island at the end of March. He and the high commissioner paid a call to the commissioner of police to discuss the case. I understand that, although critical of the coroner in the Carole Leach case, he felt that the investigations were being conducted reasonably well. He took the opportunity of his last meeting to reiterate what was written in the report and to advise on what he considered to be the best way forward. New Scotland Yard remains in contact with the Bahamian police and is ready to respond to any request for further help.
  Clearly, the role that we can play is limited. I think that the hon. Gentleman and Mrs. Gamson understand those limitations. I am especially grateful for the moderate way in which she, as a bereaved mother, has handled her dealings with the Foreign Office and its staff. It is clear that we will continue to offer what facilities we can to take the matter forward. Where resources can practically be made available that will be of practical assistance, those will be forthcoming. We will continue to press for assurances not only that there will be continued action, but that there is a desire to reach a satisfactory conclusion, which means the arrest and prosecution of those suspected of the murder.
  In my role both as a constituency Member of Parliament and as a Minister, I have had to deal with a number of cases of British families who have suffered such horrendous, tragic loss. I know that part of the necessary process of bereavement is knowledge. Yesterday, in an unrelated case, I met someone whose relation had been murdered. That person made the point that it was important to be able to understand what had happened to the close relative. Such people need to understand as much as possible what took place, to have some certainty about the manner of death and all the events surrounding that, so these are not trivial matters.
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at eighteen minutes to Twelve midnight.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  ILO/WTO
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make it her policy to support the creation of a joint working party between the ILO and WTO to examine relevant issues. [79110]

  Clare Short
  The Government are working for the world-wide observance of core labour standards for all workers. We believe that the right way to do this is through the ILO and that the recent ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work presents a key opportunity for progress. Developing countries—who make up nearly three quarters of WTO members—are opposed to the formal introduction of labour issues to the WTO agenda. They are concerned that labour standards would be used for protectionist trade purposes. We do not therefore believe the creation of a joint working party between the ILO and WTO to discuss labour issues is the right way forward, but we do support more systematic reporting between the two secretariats.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what Her Majesty's Government's plans are for humanitarian relief in Sierra Leone. [79111]

  Mr. Foulkes
  We have been leading the international effort to provide humanitarian relief and improve the security situation in Sierra Leone.

  We are co-ordinating closely with the EC, other donors and the UN to maximise effectiveness and encourage the burden sharing.

  We are also restarting longer term development programmes such as demobilisation of fighters, support to the reform of the police force and security forces, support for independent media and the peace process.

  Mr. Wells
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on aid given to the Government of Sierra Leone in the past two years. [79116]

  Clare Short
  We provided £10.5 million in 1996–97 financial year, £3.4 million in 1997–98 financial year and £9.7 million in 1998–99.

  We have provided humanitarian assistance and support for demobilisation, reform of the judiciary and legal systems, the independent media, and reform of the police and security force.

  Balkan Refugees
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the assistance her Department is providing for refugees in the Balkans. [79112]

  Clare Short
  We have been one of the largest and most active donors in helping improve the provision of humanitarian relief to the refugees from Kosovo. We have supported NATO in erecting camps, international agencies in bringing people and resources to the region—so far we have provided 23 flights and we have teams working in Tirana airport and supporting the Albanian Government. We are now preparing for the hand-over of camps to UNHCR and the NGOs and are helping establish two refugee centres in Albania.

  Our greatest concern is the situation of displaced people in Kosovo. We are considering all possibilities of providing support but no option is easy—in the face of deliberate Serbian repression. Milosevic will have to answer for this to the International Criminal Tribunal.

  Education
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with the IMF and World bank representatives about reforming policies and programmes to protect access to basic education. [79114]

  Clare Short
  We made clear in our White Paper in November 1997 that we are strongly committed to the implementation of the international development targets which include universal primary education by 2015. We have worked consistently to encourage the World Bank and IMF to incorporate the targets in their programmes.

  In recent discussions with the Managing Director of the IMF and the President of the World Bank, I have underlined the importance of protecting spending on health, and education for the poor.

  Aid Conditions
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the linkage of good government criteria to the provision of aid by her Department. [79117]

  Clare Short
  As the White Paper on International Development makes clear, good governance is essential to the economic and social policies which are necessary to the reduction of poverty. Our country strategies—20 of which have been published so far—apply this to all our programmes.

  Caribbean
  Mr. Lock
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the need for development aid in the Caribbean if the banana crop in that region is priced out of international markets; and if she will make a statement. [79118]

  Clare Short
  Substantial amounts of development assistance are already being made available through the European Commission to improve the competitiveness of the Caribbean banana producers and to support economic diversification programmes for those high cost growers
  233
  who are having to leave the industry. We are urgently examining, in consultation with the Caribbean, the implications of the recent WTO rulings. We believe the WTO ruling is compatible with new arrangements that will provide the Caribbean banana industry with viable access to international markets.

  EU Development Aid
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on EU development aid policy. [79119]

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the relationship between the United Kingdom and the EU in connection with third world aid. [79120]

  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress has been made towards improving the management of EU development aid; and if she will make a statement. [79121]

  Clare Short
  Our contributions to the EC's external assistance programmes absorb approximately 30 per cent. of the Department for International Development's budget.

  In December 1998 we published our 18 point strategy to improve EC development spending. This reflects our concern that EC aid spending is both skewed against the poorest countries and often of poor quality. Our strategy includes a proposal for the agreement of a coherent overarching statement of EU development policy.

  We are pursuing vigorously our strategy with the Commission and with other EC member states. I agreed a Joint Declaration on improving the EC's contribution to international development with my French and German opposite numbers in February. I expect to discuss specific measures for improving the quality of the EC's development spending at the EU Development Council in May, in the context of the follow-up to recently completed evaluations of the EC's development programmes.

  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the impact of the resignation of the Commissioners of the European Union on the co-ordination of British development aid with that of the EU. [79113]

  Clare Short
  The events surrounding the resignation of the Commission provide a major opportunity to reform the EC's external assistance programmes. We need an overhaul of approval, auditing and financial management systems, and more accountability. We also need to avoid sanctioning EC programmes or budget levels which cannot be effectively managed. Strengthening co-ordination is a priority of the German EU Presidency and we will support all sensible proposals at the EU Development Council next month.

  Inter-American Development Bank
  Ms McCafferty
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the extent which the work of the Inter-American Development bank is focused on the relief of poverty. [79122]
  234
  Clare Short
  Since May 1997, we have been working to increase the poverty focus of the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB). The Bank recognises that poverty remains a persistent problem in Latin America, which is the most unequal region in the world. In February, I co-chaired with IDB's President Iglesias a seminar which took as its starting point the Bank's recent Report entitled "Facing up to Inequality in Latin America". We welcome this as a contribution to raising awareness.

  In 1997, the IDB adopted a poverty reduction strategy that charts a broad course for attacking poverty in the region. This calls for the promotion of sustainable and labour-intensive economic growth, investments in human capital and special efforts to reach those groups which are unlikely to benefit from economic growth. Recognising that poverty in the region is principally a rural phenomenon, the Bank adopted a rural poverty reduction strategy in 1998 which emphasises the need to develop national rural poverty reduction strategies, and calls for activities that stimulate participation of beneficiaries including access to land and credit for farmers with productive potential, and non-agricultural employment in micro-enterprises for other rural inhabitants.

  During 1998, the Bank approved $3.3 billion for social sector and poverty reduction projects, which represented about 46 per cent. of the year's lending (the highest level ever achieved by the Bank) or 53 per cent. of the total number of projects approved. We believe that the Bank has made a good effort, but that more could be done, particularly on the link between poverty and ethnicity. We are also urging the Bank to commit itself to the International Development Goals on the elimination of poverty.

  Micro-Credit Scheme
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what support her Department plans to give to the development of the world micro-credit scheme. [79123]

  Clare Short
  We are constantly expanding its support for microfinance institutions targeting some of the world's poorest communities who have no access to formal financial services. Our current commitments for ongoing and planned project activities in this sector amount to £75 million.

  India
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her recent visit to India. [79124]

  Clare Short
  I visited India from 22 to 27 March. India is of critical importance in achieving international targets for poverty elimination since 1 in 3 of the poor of the world live there. I agreed with the Indian Government a new country strategy which will soon be published and will focus DFID assistance in a few states which are committed to implementing essential reforms for poverty elimination. These include Orissa and Andhra Pradesh which I visited to discuss how to strengthen our development partnerships with them.
  235
  The visit reinforced my view that India has the potential to make much more rapid progress in eliminating poverty. I confirmed Britain's commitment to support Indian partners who share that objective.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on aid to Zimbabwe. [79125]

  Clare Short
  Our Country Strategy Paper for Zimbabwe will be published shortly. The strategy will focus on reducing poverty in Zimbabwe which is increasing because of economic mismanagement and the HIV/AIDS pandemic. Copies of the Zimbabwe paper, like all our country strategies, will be placed in the Library of the House.

  UNESCO
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the future of the UK's involvement in UNESCO. [79126]

  Clare Short
  We are playing an active role in the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO). My Department is working to encourage UNESCO to contribute to the international goals for poverty eradication. The Government have published proposals for the design and establishment of a UK Commission for UNESCO.

  World Trade Organisation
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what is her policy in respect of the current WTO regime as it affects developing countries. [79127]

  Clare Short
  The WTO provides a forum for all countries to participate in a global trading system which is rules based and which operates in an open and transparent way. All decisions are taken by consensus. This is particularly important for developing countries, who are sometimes at a disadvantage in negotiations with the developed world. My Department is working to strengthen the capacity of developing countries so that they can participate effectively in the existing system and in future negotiations. A copy of a recent speech in which I outlined our thinking on developing countries and the WTO will be sent to the hon. Gentleman. I will also place a copy in the Library of the House.

  Education (Females)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she is taking to link development aid to the provision of education to girls and women. [79128]

  Clare Short
  We made clear in our White Paper in November 1997 that we are strongly committed to the international goals of universal primary education by 2015 and gender equity in primary and secondary education by 2005.
  236
  In our bilateral programme we are supporting Governments that give priority to the education of girls and women. We have committed over £200 million to basic education in a number of countries including Ghana, India, Zambia, Malawi, South Africa, Pakistan, Bangladesh and our largest ever single education commitment of £67 million for Uganda.

  We are also working in the multilateral agencies to increase the commitment to girls' and women's education.

  These and new programmes being developed reflect strong international evidence that investment in the education of girls is the single most effective way to reduce poverty.

  Debt Relief
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what is her Department's assessment of the amount of debt cancellation for indebted poor countries that is required in order for the Government to meet their poverty reduction targets for 2015. [79129]

  Clare Short
  It is impossible to calculate an amount of debt relief needed to meet the International Poverty eradication targets. The reduction of debt for heavily indebted poor countries (HIPCs), with good policy performance and a commitment to reduce poverty, does however have a crucial part to play in the achievement of the international development goals. A review of the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative is currently underway, and we are pressing for a link between debt relief and poverty reduction. In particular, the review needs to assess whether the amount and timing of the debt relief being provided is freeing up sufficient resources to allow governments to tackle poverty effectively. This has to be done on a country-by-country basis.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if it is her policy to maintain the current balance of expenditure on(a) direct bilateral aid, (b) aid in the EU, (c) contributions to United Nations agencies and (d)aid for voluntary organisations. [79130]

  Clare Short
  In our 1999 Departmental Report we published detailed current and planned figures for all areas of development assistance. Actual expenditure will and should vary reflecting changes, for example, in a country's commitment to poverty reduction.

  A copy of the 1999 Departmental Report is available in the Library of this House.

  Security Sector Reform
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps her Department is taking to support security sector reform in developing countries. [79131]

  Clare Short
  On 9 March, I announced my Department's new plans to help developing countries reform their security sectors. The security sector consists of those who are responsible, or should be responsible, for protecting the state and communities within the state. Included in the security sector are military, paramilitary
  237
  and intelligence services, as well as those civilian structures responsible for oversight and control of the security forces.

  All countries have legitimate security needs. But a major obstacle to making progress in development and reducing poverty in many countries is the existence of bloated, secretive, repressive, undemocratic and badly structured security sectors. Reforming the security sector is therefore a priority. Eliminating violence and reducing insecurity is a precondition for development.

  I outlined seven priority areas for future action which focus on the issues of good governance, conflict prevention, human rights promotion and post-conflict reconstruction. The priority areas are:
  to integrate a security sector reform perspective into country aid programmes, and into the thinking of other donors and multilateral development institutions
  to secure partnership programmes with the United Nations and with regional organisations who wish to co-operate with us on conflict and security issues
  to expand the provision of human rights training for members of the military
  to work internationally to reduce the number of children involved in wars
  to reduce the proliferation of small arms and light weapons
  to discourage excessive and inappropriate military expenditure
  to help to build up the peacekeeping and peace support capacity of developing countries.

  Within these priority areas, we plan to provide assistance to strengthen the democratic accountability and transparency of the security sector and facilitate the transition to peace; and second, to strengthen capacities of the uniformed security services, for example through training in conflict prevention and reduction. In doing this, we will work in co-operation with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence, but it is essential that authorities in developing countries both want our help and are committed to strengthening their effective control over their security sectors.

  A copy of my speech and of our "Policy Statement on Poverty and the Security Sector" is available in the Library of the House.

  Primary Education
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps her Department is taking to achieve the target of universal primary education by 2015. [79132]

  Clare Short
  One of my key international poverty eradication targets is to secure primary education for all children in the world by 2015. Education is therefore of crucial importance in the work of my Department. We are working in the multilateral system to increase its commitment to the 2015 target. In the Government's first year in office (1997–98), we spent over £13 million of bilateral funds on primary education. This was an increase of £5 million over the previous year. Subsequent major commitments have been made of over £200 million to basic education in a number of countries including Ghana, India, Zambia, Malawi, South Africa, Pakistan, Bangladesh and our largest ever single education commitment of £67 million for Uganda. These and new programmes being developed reflect a major contribution 238
  to the challenge of achieving universal primary education and will substantially increase the proportion of our bilateral assistance invested in primary education.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what support her Department is giving to developing countries to achieve universal primary education. [79115]

  Clare Short
  We made clear in our White Paper in November 1997 that we are strongly committed to the international development targets which include universal primary education by 2015. We are working to increase international commitment to meet the target. In our own programmes, we spent over £13 million of bilateral funds on primary education in 1997–98. This was an increase of £5 million over the previous year. Subsequent commitments of over £200 million have been made to basic education in a number of countries including Ghana, India, Zambia, Malawi, South Africa, Pakistan, Bangladesh and our largest ever single education commitment of £67 million for Uganda.

PRIME MINISTER

  Treaty of Amsterdam
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the changes to EU working groups that are to be made upon final ratification of the Treaty of Amsterdam. [80151]

  The Prime Minister
  The Treaty of Amsterdam covers a number of areas of Community competence, some of which may in time require the setting up of working groups to produce reports and recommendations on legislative proposals from the European Commission. It will be for the Committee of Permanent Representatives to decide in each case whether a Council working group needs to be established. Changes may also need to be made to the mandate of existing working groups.

  Electoral Reform
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister when he expects to announce his considered response to the report of Lord Jenkins of Hillhead on electoral systems. [80224]

  The Prime Minister
  I set out my position in the oral answer I gave to the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) on 4 November 1998,Official Report, column 868, where I told the House we wish to see, and be informed by, a full debate on the proposals of the Independent Commission on the Voting System before taking a firm view.

  Departmental Staff (Ethnic Origin)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will provide a breakdown, in numerical and percentage terms, of the ethnic origin at 1 March of(a) his private office, (b) Government special advisers, (c) the No. 10 Policy Unit and (d) No. 10 Downing Street staff in total. [78505]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government, with the Civil Service unions, recently launched a Joint Charter to address under-representation of ethnic minorities at senior levels. The Government are also setting targets for ethnic minorities in the Senior Civil Service and below.
  239
  Information on the ethnic origin of civil servants is collected on a voluntary basis, using confidential questionnaires. The number and percentage of ethnic minority staff in the private office, Government special advisers and for all staff at No. 10 Downing Street are set out in the table. I answered on 22 February 1999, Official Report, column 39, for Special Advisers across Government.

  Ethnic origin of No. 10 staff and special advisers

  Total

  Ethnic Minority

  Ethnic Minority Percentage

  Private Office

  9

  —

  —

  Policy Unit

  18

  1—

  1—

  All Downing Street Staff

  124

  7

  5.6

  Government Special Advisers

  18

  1—

  1—

  1 To protect the privacy of individual staff, numbers relating to fewer than five people are not disclosed

CABINET OFFICE

  Genetically Modified Food
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will publish the paper by the Chief Medical Officer and the Chief Scientific Adviser on the human health implications of genetically modified foods, requested by the Cabinet Sub-Committee on Biotechnology, when he receives it. [76291]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  [holding answer 12 March 1999]The Chief Medical Officer and the Chief Scientific Adviser have been asked to advise Ministers on the public health implications of the genetic modification of food. Their work will be conducted in accordance with the Government's Guidelines on "The Use of Scientific Advice in Policy Making", which sets out a framework for ensuring that Government policy is made on the basis of the best scientific advice. Advice from officials to Ministers is not normally published but the possibility of publication in this case will be considered when the advice has been received.

  Macpherson Inquiry
  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what assessment he has made of the implications for his Department of the Macpherson inquiry recommendations; and if he will make a statement. [80524]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  The Home Office published an Action Plan on 23 March containing the Government's detailed response to the specific recommendations of the Macpherson inquiry. The Plan commits the Government to setting out over the coming months how they will take forward their broader vision of an anti-racist society.

  The Government have already announced that they will legislate to apply the Race Relations Act, not just to the police service, but across public services as a whole. The Government are seeking to ensure that policy development take account of any race equality implications.

  It is also a top priority for the Government to ensure that the Civil Service reflects the full diversity of society, and values the differences that people bring to it. It must
  240
  be part of, not apart from, the society it serves. I recently launched with Sir Richard Wilson and with the Civil Service Trade Unions a Joint Charter for Action to redress the under-representation of ethnic minorities in the Senior Civil Service. The Civil Service is considering its policies as an employer in the light of the inquiry's recommendations.

  The Modernising Government White Paper published on 30 March announced challenging targets for proportions of women and ethnic minorities in the Senior Civil Service. We are also requiring Departments to set targets at levels below this. These targets signal the determination of the Civil Service to address under-representation and change the culture so as to tackle inequality.

DEFENCE

  NATO Exercises
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) which countries had armed forces involved in the NATO air exercise over Turkey carried out between 1 April 1997 and 31 March 1998; [72852]

  (2) what was the cost of the NATO air exercise in Turkey carried out between 1 April 1997 and 31 March 1998; and what was the cost of UK participation; [72845]

  (3) how many personnel were deployed on the NATO air exercise in Turkey carried out between 1 April 1997 and 31 March 1998; [72983]

  (4) what assessment he has made of the principal benefits of the NATO air exercise in Turkey carried out between 1 April 1997 and 31 March 1998. [76594]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer March 1999]Exercise Distant Thunder took place in Turkey between 28 April–9 May 1997. Italy, Turkey, the US and the UK took part. There is not a figure available within NATO for the total number of personnel participating. I understand from NATO that the cost of the NATO Exercise Fund of this exercise has been estimated at some £210,000. The additional cost to the UK of participation in the exercise totalled some £11,000, with about 100 personnel participating. We do not know what the national costs to other participating nations were. Exercise Distant Thunder provided excellent training in both deployment procedures and in practising Combined Air Operations.

  Building and Property Group
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what security vetting is undertaken of staff employed by Building and Property Group Ltd. and their sub-contractors operating at his Department's establishments. [80044]

  Mr. Spellar
  Security vetting of staff was the responsibility of BPD Ltd. until last year, when their List X status was removed. At HMNB Portsmouth, BPD Ltd. currently undertake the Basic Check procedure and may issue temporary passes, pending Counter Terrorist Check clearance being carried out by the Defence Vetting Agency.

  Weaponry Gifts
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 15 March 1999,Official Report, column 508, if he will state in each case (a) on what date the equipment listed was supplied and (b) its value. [80477]

  Mr. George Robertson
  Gifts of weaponry by Her Majesty's Government to overseas Governments and armed forces since 1 January 1990, showing the date that each item was supplied, and the value, are as follows:

  Overseas Governments:

  Australia

  Gannet MkT5 aircraft—9 January 1995, £5,000

  Belize

  Harrier GR3–11 March 1994, £1,200

  Stores and equipment (which included ammunition) February 1994-June 1995, £401,000

  Canada

  FV 433 Abbott—25 July 1994, £3,000

  4 x Ferret scout cars—December 1997, £4,000

  2 x Chieftain main battle tanks—30 March 1998 and 12 December 1998, £5,000 each

  Other (unspecified) armoured vehicles—15 October 1992, £1,600

  Chile

  Harrier GR3 aircraft—24 February 1994, £1,100

  Czechoslovakia

  Phantom aircraft—16 January 1992, £8,500

  Germany

  Harrier—10 February 1992, £5,000

  Phantom—10 February 1992, £8,500

  Hastings aircraft—9 September 1994, £2,000

  FV 432 armoured vehicle and Ferret scout car—September 1994, £500

  2 x Centurion main battle tanks—20 October 1994, £5,700

  Jordan

  Hunter aircraft (and spares)—15 December 1994, £22,000

  Luxembourg

  25 pounder gun—14 May 1993, £2,000

  Lebanon

  500 x self loading rifles—7 July 1995, £32,500

  Norway

  Canberra aircraft—4 May 1995, £3,000

  Nepal

  70 x light machine guns—16 February 1993, £7,000

  Self loading rifles and light machine guns—August 1994, £10,000

  Ancillaries for light machine guns—31 May 1995, £18

  Romania and Bulgaria

  (Gifted through the Western European Union)

  Combat support boats—10 August 1993, £4,500 (Plus £32,000 transportation costs)

  Zimbabwe

  1,000 rounds of ammunition—17 February 1994, £375

  242

  Armed forces:

  Baltic Peacekeeping Battalion

  Anti-tank weapons—14 May 1996, £20

  France

  AR Martel missiles—April-July 1994, £30,000

  Netherlands

  Rifle—21 May 1991, £30

  Nepal

  15 x Ferret scout cars—5 August 1994, £3,750

  Ferret spares—4 November 1996, £7,000.

  Much of the equipment listed was gifted for display in national, service or other official museums in the countries concerned.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many attack missions against Yugoslavia have been flown by British aircraft in the two weeks up to 31 March; and what was the cost of them to the British public funds. [80425]

  Mr. George Robertson
  As part of Operation Allied Force, a total of 50 sorties were flown by UK ground attack aircraft in the period up to 6.00 a.m. on 1 April 1999, at an estimated total extra cost excluding munitions, of some £360,000.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) bombs and (b) missiles paid for by British public funds have been used to attack Yugoslavia in the two weeks up to 31 March; and what was their total cost. [80427]

  Mr. George Robertson
  A total of 14 bombs were dropped by UK aircraft in support of Operation Allied Force during the period in question. These bombs cost a total of some £520,000. I am withholding the information requested in respect of missiles under exemption la of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what latest estimate he has made of the total cost of resolving the year 2000 computer problem in all defence-related areas; how much has been spent to date; and if he will make a statement. [79805]

  Mr. Spellar
  The projected additional cost of the MoD Year 2000 date change compliancy programme remains at £200m. Actual expenditure by MoD's top-level Budget Holders at the end of February 1999 was £48.5m. These figures include the cost of all activities to address the problem which we would not otherwise have needed to undertake. However, they exclude the cost of any equipment procurements or upgrades which were already planned and funded to meet a requirement of operational or business reasons, but which also address the Y2K issue. They also exclude the cost of internal MOD staff effort to ensure that our systems are compliant.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what precautions are being taken by Her Majesty's armed forces over the period 30 December 1999 to 5 January 2000 to ensure defence capability is not damaged by the year 2000 computer problem; and if he will make a statement. [79806]
  243
  Mr. Spellar
  The MoD has had a technical programme in place since 1996 to scope and address the problem of computer system compliancy with the Year 2000 date change. This programme is progressing well, with over 60 per cent. of MoD's critical systems now compliant. In addition, comprehensive contingency plans are being developed against the possibility of unexpected failure of MoD systems, or the failure of other non-MoD systems on which we rely, such as the public utilities. These plans seek to ensure the continuity of military operations and the requisite levels of defence capability throughout the period 1 September 1999 to 31 March 2000. There are also well-established procedures for crisis management on a 24-hour basis, which will apply throughout this period.

  Royal Navy Physiological Laboratory
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 24 March 1999,Official Report, column 307, how many goats have died in experiments at the Royal Navy Physiological Laboratory in (a) the last 12 months and (b) each of the previous five years; how many have been injured before undergoing experiments; what anaesthetics are administered to goats; and if he will list the experiments that have been performed on goats. [79725]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. 1 have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Sir John Chisholm to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 14 April 1999:

  I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question about the former Royal Navy Physiological Laboratory (RNPL) which is now part of the Centre for Human Sciences (CHS) Sector of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA).

  You asked for information about DERA's research programme to determine the pressure and time limits for the safe escape of Navy personnel from a sunken submarine involving the use of goats. In addition to the ongoing escape programme carried out on behalf of the Ministry of Defence, DERA is also taking part in a 3 year co-operative programme with the United States Navy looking at submarine rescue. All of these experiments involve exposing goats to altered pressure and atmospheres similar to those that would be experienced by submariners evacuating a sunken submarine.

  You asked what number of goats have died in experiments in the last 12 months and each of the last five years. DERA reports its statistics to the Home Office by calendar year and, in order to avoid confusion, I will follow the same format here. The experiments themselves do not cause death. The goats are closely monitored throughout the experiments and if signs of decompression sickness occur the goats may be recompressed in the same way as divers and submariners. Alternatively, if their condition warrants, they are humanely killed at that point. In each of the previous 5 years the numbers humanely killed during or following experiments were as follows:

  Year

  Number of goats

  1994

  2

  1995

  8

  1996

  5

  1997

  1

  1998

  11

  Since 1 January 1999, 9 goats have been humanely killed during or following experiments. It is likely that the total number of goats killed in 1999 will be higher than in recent years for three reasons. Firstly, two research programmes are being carried out concurrently
  244
  and, secondly, the conditions of the co-operative rescue programme are such that more animals will be humanely killed in the early stages. Thirdly, a restocking programme has started as many of the goats are getting old and these also, will be humanely killed.

  None of the goats are injured prior to the experiments.

  The anaesthetics administered to the goats are as follows
  Rompun and Domitor (sedative/analgesic)
  Torbugesic (analgesic)
  Halothane/oxygen/nitrous oxide (general anaesthetic)
  Lignocaine (local anaesthetic)
  Sodium pentobarbitone (lethal injection by anaesthetic)

  The dosages are as recommended by the independent veterinary surgeon and administered by trained and licensed staff.

  I hope this is helpful.

TREASURY

  Departmental Policies
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what systems he has in place to ensure that policies being developed by his Department are subject to a crime impact(a) assessment and (b) audit and are not likely to lead to enhanced criminal opportunities.[72690]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 24 February 1999]Government Departments are co-operating closely on policy development and, therefore, I work closely with other Ministers on any likely implications for crime of new developments, as indicated by research.

  As far as the Treasury is concerned, all our policies should support Home Office Aim 1, which is to reduce crime and the fear of crime. The Home Office research programme monitors and evaluates the effects of new policy and other interventions.

  Child Poverty
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what definition of poverty underlies his statement in this year's Budget statement that 700,000 children will be taken out of poverty as a result of the Budget. [78522]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 25 March 1999]The estimate of 700,000 children is based on the number of children in low income families who will no longer be living in households below half the average equivalised income after allowing for housing costs. This calculation looks at the impact of all the tax and benefit measures announced in the last two Budgets, the introduction of the Working Families Tax Credit and National Minimum Wage.

  This method is one snap-shot indicator of one dimension of relative poverty. Child poverty is complex. It is characterised by a number of related problems, including persistent low family incomes caused by parental unemployment, damaged opportunities later in life, and too often a poor education in childhood.

  The Government's strategy for reducing poverty and social exclusion is tackling all aspects of poverty and tackling it at source. It is focused on investment in prevention, work as the best way out of poverty and regenerating the poorest communities, while providing support for those who cannot work.
  245
  The Government's report on the progress being made on tackling poverty and social exclusion, due to be published in early summer, will explain our policy priorities in more depth and include a range of low income indicators.

  Children's Tax Credit
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the numbers of higher rate taxpayers who will pay a 46 per cent. marginal rate of income tax consequent upon the tapering of the children's tax credit(a) in total, (b) where the taxpayer is the sole earner in the family and (c) where the taxpayer is the sole higher rate taxpayer in the family. [79091]

  Ms Hewitt
  It is estimated that in 2001–02 there will be 300,000 taxpayers on the children's tax credit taper. Of these, around 90,000 will be the sole earner in the family. In very few cases will there be two higher rate taxpayers in the family.

  Road Fuel Duty
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the estimated extra revenue, including the added effects of VAT, from the road fuel duty escalator in the Budget statements for(a) 1993–94, (b) 1994–95, (c) 1996–97, (d) 1997–98 and (e) 1998–99; and what was the actual revenue accrued, including the added effects of VAT, in those years. [79322]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 30 March 1999j: Estimates of the extra revenue, including VAT, from the road fuel duty escalator are shown in the Financial Statement and Budget Reports for the relevant years in the following tables:

  Table 1: Livebirth rates for girls aged under 16 and 16–19 per 1000 female population aged 13–15 and 16–19 respectively

  Scotland

  England and Wales

  N. Ireland

  Under 161

  16–19

  Under 161

  16–19

  Under1

  16–19

  1988

  1.5

  38.0

  1.4

  38.9

  1.1

  37.5

  1989

  1.3

  37.0

  1.5

  38.0

  0.9

  35.5

  1990

  1.4

  38.1

  1.5

  39.7

  1.0

  35.4

  1991

  1.3

  40.1

  1.7

  39.2

  1.0

  35.2

  1992

  1.5

  39.4

  1.5

  37.7

  0.9

  37.3

  1993

  1.4

  37.5

  1.6

  37.2

  0.9

  34.0

  1994

  1.4

  34.5

  1.4

  35.5

  1.3

  32.4

  1995

  1.7

  34.3

  1.6

  35.1

  1.2

  29.3

  1996

  1.7

  36.3

  1.7

  36.4

  1.4

  31.7

  1997

  1.9

  37.3

  1.7

  36.5

  1.1

  36.1

  1 Rates for under 16s include a very small number of births to mothers aged under 13

  Table 2: Fertility rates per 1000 female population aged under 20 at 31 December

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Belgium

  8.9

  8.6

  8.8

  7.9

  8.6

  8.9

  8.6

  8.0

  6.7

  6.7

  n/a

  Denmark

  6.7

  6.5

  6.3

  6.5

  9.1

  6.6

  7.0

  6.7

  6.8

  6.1

  n/a

  Germany

  13.0

  13.2

  14.0

  14.2

  14.6

  13.8

  12.7

  11.2

  10.1

  9.4

  9.6

  Greece

  25.9

  22.6

  19.1

  17.3

  15.6

  13.9

  13.2

  11.7

  10.7

  10.0

  9.7

  Spain

  13.1

  12.3

  11.9

  10.3

  9.3

  8.7

  8.0

  7.3

  6.6

  6.3

  n/a

  France

  10.8

  9.9

  9.4

  9.1

  9.2

  9.3

  8.8

  8.1

  7.3

  6.9

  6.8

  Ireland

  12.4

  12.6

  12.1

  11.5

  13.1

  13.5

  13.0

  12.7

  11.6

  11.8

  12.7

  Italy

  11.1

  10.3

  9.8

  6.9

  6.5

  6.2

  5.6

  6.0

  5.6

  5.3

  n/a

  Luxembourg

  6.7

  8.2

  10.1

  8.7

  14.1

  9.6

  9.1

  9.0

  8.5

  6.8

  7.0

  Netherlands

  5.1

  5.2

  5.6

  5.9

  6.4

  6.3

  5.8

  5.4

  5.1

  4.2

  4.1

  Austria

  17.8

  16.7

  16.7

  16.4

  16.4

  17.8

  17.9

  17.0

  14.4

  12.9

  11.5

  246
  1993–94: Table 4.1

  1994–95: Table 4.1 and paragraph 5 of Annex B to Chapter 4

  1995–96: Table 5.1 and Table 5B.2

  1996–97: Table 5.1 and Table 5B.2

  1997–98: Table 6.1 and Table 6B.2

  1998–99: Table 2.2 and Table 2B.2.

  It is not possible to isolate the extra revenue actually accrued from the escalator in isolation from the other factors influencing receipts.

  Birth Statistics
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for each of the last 10 years the percentage of births among (i) 13 to 15 and (ii) 16 to 19-year-olds per 1,000 females for(a) Scotland, (b) England and Wales, (c) Northern Ireland and (d) each other European Union country. [79591]

  Ms Hewitt
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mrs. Helen Brinton, dated 14 April 1999:

  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question on teenage births.

  The attached Table 1 shows livebirth rates for girls aged under 16 and 16–19 per 1000 female population aged 13–15 and 16–19 respectively.

  Figures for other European Union countries are not readily available for the age-groups requested, but their teenage fertility rates are shown in the attached Table 2. The rates are for women aged under 20 at the end of the year, per 1000 female population aged 15–19, and are therefore not directly comparable to those shown above which are for women aged under 20 at maternity.
  247

  Table 2: Fertility rates per 1000 female population aged under 20 at 31 December

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Portugal

  24.2

  22.5

  21.4

  20.8

  18.9

  18.5

  17.9

  18.1

  17.3

  16.7

  16.7

  Finland

  9.5

  8.9

  9.1

  8.7

  8.7

  8.6

  8.2

  7.6

  7.0

  6.7

  6.9

  Sweden

  7.9

  7.4

  7.8

  8.9

  9.8

  9.2

  8.3

  7.7

  6.7

  6.1

  5.5

  UK

  23.9

  24.5

  25.9

  25.7

  27.0

  26.9

  25.8

  24.7

  22.7

  22.0

  22.9

  Source:

  Eurostat

  National Changeover Plan
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the non-IT costs of the National Changeover Plan, with particular reference to informing business and the public. [80397]

  Ms Hewitt
  The cost of informing business and the public about the changeover would depend on the final approach taken to the changeover. By planning ahead, we will be able to ensure that a UK changeover would be cost effective for the economy as a whole.

  Euro Coins
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer to the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) of 22 March 1999,Official Report, column 100, on euro coins, what sanctions are to be applied in the case of the United Kingdom against those who damage or destroy the image of the euro; and what representations he has received on this subject. [80178]

  Ms Hewitt
  In the case of non-participating Member States, enforcement of the copyright in the common face design of euro coins will be ensured by the Commission, according to the national legislation of the Member State concerned. In the UK, enforcement would take the form of civil proceedings.

  Workless Households
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many workless households with dependent children there were in(a) 1979, (b) 1984, (c) 1989, (d) 1994 and (e) at the latest date for which statistics are available. [79661]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 13 April 1999]The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Frank Field, dated 14 April 1999:

  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question on workless households with dependent children.

  The ONS introduced Labour Force Survey (LFS) databases especially designed for analyses of household data in August 1998. The earliest data available is for spring 1990. Hence, figures can only be given for 1990, 1994 and the latest date available, 1998. These figures are shown in the table.
  248

  Numbers of workless working age households with dependant children, Spring, United Kingdom

  Year

  1990

  800,000

  1994

  1,238,000

  1998

  1,164,000

  These figures were published in an article in the January 1999 edition of Labour Market Trends (pp 31–40), a copy of which is in the House of Commons Library.

  Cancer (Survival and Mortality Rates)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list national survival rates for all cancers for each year from 1992 to date. [80271]

  Ms Hewitt
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Paul Marsden, dated 14 April 1999:

  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question on cancer survival rates.

  Survival rates in England and Wales were most recently published in ONS Monitor MBI 98/1, for cancers diagnosed in 1981 and 1989, followed up to the end of 1994. The relative survival rates at one-and five-years after diagnosis for all cancers as shown in this publication are given in the table below. This publication, which is available in the House of Commons Library, also presents survival rates for the major types of cancer in men and women.

  One and five-year relative survival (%), all cancers diagnosed in 1981 and 1989, England and Wales

  One-year survival

  Five-year survival

  1981

  1989

  1981

  1989

  Males aged 0–84

  37.0

  44.3

  19.5

  24.7

  Females aged 0–84

  50.3

  56.3

  31.7

  37.5

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will list mortality rates for all types of cancers for each health authority; [80272]

  (2) if he will list mortality rates of cancers for all types of cancer, in descending order, for each EU country. [80273]

  Ms Hewitt
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Paul Marsden, dated 14 April 1999:

  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary questions on mortality rates of cancers.
  249
  The information requested is given in the attached tables.

  Mortality rates from all cancers1 in persons of all ages Age-standardised2 mortality rates per 100,000 population, 1995, (unless otherwise stated)

  Male rate

  Female rate

  Austria

  250

  153

  Belgium (1993)

  305

  153

  Denmark

  294

  220

  Finland

  220

  130

  France

  292

  129

  Germany

  263

  157

  Greece

  221

  115

  Ireland

  264

  177

  Italy (1994)

  276

  143

  Luxembourg

  300

  147

  Netherlands

  282

  159

  Portugal

  235

  126

  Spain

  262

  118

  Sweden

  191

  142

  United Kingdom

  257

  172

  1 Malignant neoplasms, International Classification of Diseases (Ninth Revision) codes 140–208

  2 Age-standardised rates are directly age-standardised to the European Standard Population

  Mortality rates from all cancers1 in persons of all ages Age-standardised2 mortality rates per 100,000 population in the period 1995–97 (England), 1997 (Wales)

  Health Authorities (boundaries as of April 1996)

  Male rate

  Female rate

  England

  Bradford

  248

  173

  County Durham

  288

  187

  East Riding

  264

  179

  Gateshead & South Tyneside

  318

  196

  Leeds

  254

  176

  Newcastle & North Tyneside

  302

  208

  North Cumbria

  256

  169

  Northumberland

  275

  177

  Sunderland

  296

  190

  Tees

  304

  191

  Wakefield Health Care

  271

  179

  North Yorkshire

  219

  155

  Calderdale & Kirklees

  246

  165

  Barnsley

  266

  183

  North Derbyshire

  252

  177

  South Derbyshire

  242

  162

  Doncaster

  286

  185

  Leicestershire

  217

  161

  Lincolnshire

  235

  159

  North Nottinghamshire

  254

  174

  Nottingham

  258

  169

  Rotherham

  257

  191

  Sheffield

  277

  186

  South Humber

  278

  182

  Bedfordshire

  237

  160

  Berkshire

  228

  157

  Buckinghamshire

  215

  161

  Cambridge & Huntingdon

  213

  151

  East Norfolk

  225

  156

  Northamptonshire

  254

  167

  North West Anglia

  228

  164

  Oxfordshire

  216

  161

  Suffolk

  224

  157

  Hillingdon

  232

  174

  Kensington, Chelsea & Westminster

  223

  161

  Enfield & Haringey

  233

  158

  Redbridge & Waltham Forest

  230

  152

  Barking & Havering

  272

  186

  Barnet

  197

  158

  Brent & Harrow

  215

  161

  Camden & Islington

  244

  176

  250

  Mortality rates from all cancers1 in persons of all ages Age-standardised2 mortality rates per 100,000 population in the period 1995–97 (England), 1997 (Wales)

  Health Authorities (boundaries as of April 1996)

  Male rate

  Female rate

  Ealing, Hammersmith & Hounslow

  233

  172

  East London & The City

  279

  185

  North Essex

  226

  162

  South Essex

  250

  174

  East & North Hertfordshire

  222

  162

  West Hertfordshire

  215

  164

  Bexley & Greenwich

  262

  171

  Bromley

  236

  269

  Croydon

  233

  173

  East Kent

  258

  165

  West Kent

  247

  169

  Kingston & Richmond

  233

  157

  Lambeth, Southwark & Lewisham

  272

  177

  Merton, Sutton & Wandsworth

  249

  164

  East Surrey

  211

  142

  West Surrey

  223

  160

  East Sussex, Brighton & Hove

  233

  158

  West Sussex

  223

  154

  North & Mid Hampshire

  225

  157

  Portsmouth & South East Hampshire

  248

  168

  Southampton & South West Hampshire

  237

  157

  Isle of Wight

  222

  152

  Somerset

  230

  152

  South & West Devon

  235

  162

  Wiltshire

  221

  164

  Avon

  229

  157

  Cornwall & Isles of Scilly

  232

  170

  Dorset

  228

  154

  North & East Devon

  216

  150

  Gloucestershire

  224

  157

  Birmingham

  254

  172

  Coventry

  241

  172

  Dudley

  247

  168

  Herefordshire

  227

  152

  Sandwell

  285

  182

  Shropshire

  244

  167

  Solihull

  229

  169

  North Staffordshire

  284

  178

  South Stafforshire

  250

  165

  Walsall

  261

  164

  Warwickshire

  242

  170

  Wolverhampton

  257

  174

  Worcestershire

  230

  161

  South Lancashire

  253

  169

  Liverpool

  336

  226

  Manchester

  321

  209

  Morecambe Bay

  244

  163

  St. Helens & Knowsley

  311

  200

  Salford & Trafford

  282

  197

  Sefton

  273

  186

  Stockport

  241

  168

  West Pennine

  287

  180

  Bury & Rochdale

  262

  199

  North Cheshire

  287

  186

  South Cheshire

  240

  160

  East Lancashire

  261

  177

  North West Lancashire

  250

  174

  Wigan & Bolton

  263

  173

  Wirral

  276

  185

  Wales

  North Wales

  252

  165

  Dyfed Powys

  219

  165

  Morgannwg

  257

  167

  Bro Taf

  253

  177

  Gwent

  247

  162

  1 Malignant neoplasms, International Classification of Diseases (Ninth Revision) codes 140–208

  2 Age-standardised rates are directly age-standardised to the European Standard Population

  Exchange Rate
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy on the exchange rate between sterling and the deutschmark. [80404]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government's aim is for a stable and competitive exchange rate over the medium term, consistent with the objective of price stability. The only sure path to long-term exchange rate stability is through the pursuit of macroeconomic policies aimed at achieving sustained growth, sound public finances and low inflation.

  EU Financing Arrangements
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the effect on the(a) gross and (b) net contributions of each member state of the European Union of the changes to EU financing arrangements agreed at the Berlin summit. [80015]

  Ms Hewitt
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Prime Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) on 29 March 1999,Official Report, column 737.

  Financial Services and Markets
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will publish further clauses of the draft Financial Services and Markets Bill. [80811]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have today made available to the Joint Committee on Financial Services and Markets four additional Parts of the draft Bill. These relate to official listing, collective investment schemes, disclosure of information and insolvency. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Endowment Policies
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has requested(a) the Financial Services Authority and (b) the Personal Investment Authority to consider the advice required on the early termination and surrender of endowment policies. [80510]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Financial Services Authority is monitoring sales of mortgage-linked endowment policies. If there is a need for regulatory guidance, in respect of early termination and surrender, the regulator will act accordingly.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Postal Workers
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will provide a breakdown by job centre of vacancies notified for postal workers in the last year for which figures are available. [80453]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Responsibility for the subject of this question has been delegated to the Employment Service Agency under its Chief Executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given and a copy placed in the Library.

  Skyline College, UAE
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations have been made by his Department regarding the censorship at Skyline College in the United Arab Emirates referred to in the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education report 1998. [79941]

  Mr. Mudie
  The Department has not made any representations on this issue, but we believe that universities-should always consider the ethical dimension of their activities.

  The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) conducts a programme of audits of institutions' overseas partnerships, and we are aware of the QAA audit report about the quality assurance arrangements of the collaborative partnership between the University of Lincolnshire and Humberside and Skyline College, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates. We note that the QAA has asked the University to examine without delay the possible implications of restrictions in learning materials, which may be excluding its students from a body of scholarship on grounds of authors' race or creed.

  New Deal (Young People)
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many young unemployed people he estimates will join the New Deal programme in 1999–2000, broken down by suitable locality. [80899]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The New Deal for young people is delivered through local partnerships. For planning purposes, the Employment Service has provided its partners in each local unit of delivery with an indicative assumption for the numbers of young people who might join the programme in 1999–2000. Those planning assumptions are based on current unemployment levels. They are not forecasts of the actual numbers who will join the programme. They do however enable the Employment Service and its partners in each local area to plan on a better informed basis, and they help to ensure that adequate plans are in place locally to meet potential demand.
  254
  I am placing in the Library a list showing the indicative planning assumption for the New Deal for young people in each unit of delivery.

  Departmental Investment Strategy
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will publish details of his Department's Departmental Investment Strategy. [80900]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Copies of the Departmental Investment Strategy report have been placed in the Library. In line with Government policy on electronic government this document will also be available on the DfEE internet site shortly.

  Digital Educational Broadcasting
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will announce his decision on the recent competition for the provision of digital educational broadcasting services to support the GCSE curriculum. [80901]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Following careful consideration of the bids received and presentations of the various proposals we are now inviting the short-listed bidders to take part in demonstration projects to test curriculum modules to support GCSE subjects. The resultant materials will be tested and evaluated as a basis for further decisions at a later date.

  Education Costs (Recovery)
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to recover the cost of education in the state sector of foreign children temporarily resident in the United Kingdom whose parents have received specific educational grants from their home Government; and if he will make a statement. [79689]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We have no plans to change the current arrangements. We believe that all children resident in this country should be entitled to receive a free school education. Foreign children are treated in the same way as other children in the calculation of the Government's support for education through the standard spending assessment system.

  Local Education Support Division
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many staff are employed within the Local Education Authority Support Division of his Department; and what is(a) the cost of that division in 1998–99 and (b) the budgeted cost for 1999–2000. [80388]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 13 April 1999]The Local Education Authority Support Division, within the Department for Education and Employment, has a staffing establishment of 50 people; a further 4 people are currently employed to support the change process to the new organisational structure.

  Appointments to the Division, made through open competition, include existing staff from within the

  255
  Department and the Funding Agency for Schools as well as some external candidates.

  The budget cost of the Division in 1998–99 was £440,000.

  The budget cost for the Division in 1999–2000 is £1,629,000.

  New Deal
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what statistical data he has collated on the destination of those who have completed a 12 month educational training option on the New Deal for 18 to 25 year olds. [80563]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 13 April 1999]Statistics are collected on various aspects of New Deal performance including destinations of those leaving New Deal from an Option. The latest figures are available in table 11 of the New Deal Statistical First Release, which is held in the Library. However, as New Deal for 18 to 24 year olds only started in Pathfinder areas in January 1998 and nationally in April 1998, very few will have had the opportunity to complete a 12 month Full-Time Education and Training Option. The results of early quantitative evaluation of Options in the Pathfinder areas will be published in the Summer.

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list(a) those local education authorities in England which are budgeting to spend more in 1999–2000 than provided for in their education standard spending assessment, and (b) which of these authorities are proposing a budget increase for education in 1999–2000 which is less than the increase in their education standard spending provision compared with 1998–99. [80499]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 13 April 1999]Authoritative information will not be available until June 1999 when local education authorities' returns in accordance with section 52 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 have been collated and checked.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Iraq
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will outline the Government's current policy in relation to the reports of the three United Nations panels on Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [80515]

  Mr. Fatchett
  [holding answer 13 April 1999]The panels' reports form a good basis for Security Council discussion on the way forward on Iraq.

  The disarmament panel has endorsed what has long been clear: that UNSCOM has achieved an enormous amount, but that there are still important questions left unanswered. The panel has also stated clearly that Iraq has not fulfilled its obligations. We share the panel's view
  256
  that if the inspectors are to go back into Iraq they will need a system more, not less, intrusive than before.

  Iraq's refusal to come clean over its weapons of mass destruction has prevented any movement on sanctions. Compliance with Security Council resolutions is an essential prerequisite for lifting sanctions. Our insistence on Iraq meeting its obligations does not mean we can ignore the suffering of the Iraqi people. We are pleased that the humanitarian panel has picked up many of our proposals on how to improve international efforts to alleviate this suffering, on how to increase the amount of money going into the oil-for-food programme and ensuring it is used as effectively as possible.

  Neither should we lose sight of the fate of the Kuwaitis and others still missing since the Gulf War ended in 1991, on which Iraq has remained shamelessly silent. I welcome the third panel's support for the Tripartite Commission chaired by the International Committee of the Red Cross, and echo its call for Iraq to co-operate fully.

  Human Rights
  Sir Peter Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he intends to publish the annual report on human rights. [80575]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The Government's Annual Report on Human Rights for 1999 will be laid before Parliament as a Command Paper by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development during the present Parliamentary session.

  Ascension Islands (Oil Storage)
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of efficacy of a shore-based solution for the bulk oil storage arrangements of the Ascension Islands. [79809]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I have been asked to reply.

  Following a review of strategic stock holdings at Ascension Island, my Department is considering the optimum arrangements for the future storage of fuel stocks. As part of this work, we are examining the amount of on-island fuel storage infrastructure currently available, whether additional storage is necessary and whether this can be provided more cost effectively than under present arrangements utilising the chartered vessel MV Maersk Ascension.

  Chechnya
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the advice he has placed in the Library in respect of people travelling to Chechnya was issued to individual visa applicants employed by Granger Telecom or was issued to the company that employed them. [66960]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  [pursuant to his reply, 21 January 1999, c. 536–37]: Granger Telecom have informed FCO officials that as a result of Granger's meeting with

  257
  FCO officials on 21 August 1998, Granger management did not re-consult their field staff about their willingness to work in Chechnya, but Granger Telecom directors discussed the advice given to Granger by the FCO at that meeting. Granger Telecom have reaffirmed that they drew to the attention of their field staff the FCO travel advice for Russia which stated:
  "We strongly advise against travel to the Chechen Republic … because of the unstable security situation. Visitors have been kidnapped in these areas recently."

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Transsexuals
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans the Government have to review the legal status of transsexual people. [81107]

  Mr. Straw
  My officials will chair an inter-departmental Working Group on transsexuals. This will have the following terms of reference:"To consider, with particular reference to birth certificates, the need for appropriate legal measures to address the problems experienced by transsexuals, having due regard to scientific and societal developments, and measures undertaken in other countries to deal with this issue."

  Membership:

  Department for Education and Employment

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  Department of Health

  Home Office

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  Office of Law Reform, Northern Ireland

  Northern Ireland General Register Office

  Office for National Statistics

  Scottish Office

  Scottish General Register Office

  Department for Social Security

  Welsh Office.

  I have asked the Group to report its findings Ministers by Easter 2000.

  Prisoners (Drug-free Medicine)
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what studies have been carried out into the effect of withdrawing from prisoners constitutional integrated drug-free medicine received for patterns of addiction, violence and related disturbances;[80137]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the constitutional integrated drug-free medical treatment programme established in HMP Coldingley, Feltham and Downview by Complementary Medical Services for Prisoners and the effects reported by prisoners; [80138]

  (3) when the Prison Service instruction to governors regarding the provision of complementary medical services to prisoners will be issued; who was consulted in formulating this policy; and what assessment he has
  258
  made of the impact it will have on the provision of constitutional drug-free medicine within the prison service; [80166]

  (4) what assessment the Minister of State responsible for Prisons has made of the Institute for the Study and Treatment of Delinquency's report on the complementary medical treatment programme at HM Prison Coldingley; and if he will make a statement. [80167]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The report by the Institute for the Study and Treatment of Delinquency provides a general evaluation of the complementary medical treatment pilot at Coldingley and records the broadly positive and supportive views of patients. It makes proposals for improving the organisation of the service and for future research. The report does not provide a detailed assessment of the therapeutic value of all the treatments and practices involved nor of the resource and other implications of continuing the programme or extending it to other prisons.

  The Prison Service, recognising the need to establish clear guidelines about the place of complementary therapies alongside conventional health care provided to prisoners, and having consulted the Department of Health, has concluded that only a limited number of complementary therapies of potential benefit to prisoners and prison regimes should be provided in prison, subject to an assessment of health needs and overall budgeting constraints. Provision will have to be on the basis of an assessed health need and in the context of an integrated health improvement plan, as described in the Government's announcement of 29 March 1999, Official Report, columns 556–58, on the future organisation of prison health care. Service providers will be required to show that they operate within accepted professional standards of competence. An instruction will shortly be issued to all Prison Service establishments to explain this policy.

  The Prison Service has not carried out research into the effects of limiting the range of complementary therapies.

  Schengen Accords
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those elements of to the Schengen supplementary accords, copies of which his Department had not received at the time of the formal application to join elements of the Schengen system; and if he will make a statement on his plans to place them in the Library. [80398]

  Kate Hoey
  As no formal application has yet been made by the Government it is not possible to list those elements of the Schengen supplementary accords copies of which the Home Department had not received at the time of the formal application. The Government will continue to place all further Declarations and Directives of the Schengen Executive Committee in the Library as they are received, where these are not classified.

  Justice and Home Affairs Council
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to report to the House on the outcome of the Justice and Home Affairs Council of 12 March.[80494]
  259
  Kate Hoey
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 29 March 1999, Official Report, column 532.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what account he took of the geographical extent of bee activity when deciding the extent of the sanitary cordon around genetically modified trial crops. [75093]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 8 March 1999]Each application for the release of genetically modified (GM) plants for research purposes is supported by a risk assessment, which is evaluated by Government experts and independent scientists on the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE). Their consideration will include the possible spread of GM pollen by all means, including bee activity, and its likely consequences. One member of ACRE is an expert on bees and their behaviour. Based on the type of GM plant, how it has been modified and the circumstances of the proposed release it may be judged necessary to minimise the potential for cross-pollination of neighbouring sexually compatible crops or wild relatives by the GM plants. The precautions taken to prevent or reduce cross-pollination include the removal of flowers, specific isolation distances between GM and non-GM plants or borders of non-GM plants around the plots of GM plants. It has to be recognised however that bee activity may in some cases involve the dissemination of GM pollen beyond the isolation distances traditionally used.

  Speed Limit Repeater Signs
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received in favour of permitting repeater signs indicating the 30 mph speed limit in built-up areas; and if he will make a statement. [79690]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We regularly receive a small number of letters requesting that repeater signs be allowed so as to reinforce the 30 mph speed limit. We are currently conducting a speed policy review which will consider all speed related issues, including the role signs play in managing traffic speeds.

  Motorcycle Advisory Group
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what the terms of reference of the Government's motorcycle advisory group will be; [79928]

  (2) which non-governmental groups will be invited to join the Government's advisory group on motorcycling; [79927]

  (3) what steps he is currently undertaking to encourage the use of small motorcycles. [79926]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Arrangements will be made shortly for the convening of the first formal meeting of the Motorcycling Advisory Group. We will announce the date and the Group membership shortly. The Terms of 260
  Reference will be finalised at this meeting. However, a central feature will be to consider the role of motorcycling in our integrated transport policy.

  We are already providing assistance over motorcycle security in that we are supporting Lord Rotherwick's Bill, introduced on 30 March, which will enable local authorities to provide secure parking devices.

  Residential Leasehold Reform
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many submissions he received in response to the Government's Green Paper on Residential Leasehold Reform in England and Wales by 31 March. [80645]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We had received 923 responses to the consultation paper by 31 March.

  Local Authority Expenditure
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the setting of the standard spending assessment level for the planning period in respect of local authority road maintenance expenditure. [80400]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 13 April 1999]This was amongst the issues discussed as part of the overall level of expenditure for transport and local authorities during the CSR period.

  Housing Projections (Essex)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the impact that his revision downwards on the projection of the number of houses that will need to be built between now and 2016 will have on the projected number of houses needed in(a) Essex and (b) Mid-Essex. [80289]

  Mr. Raynsford
  As the Deputy Prime Minister said in his answer on 29 March 1999,Official Report, column 472, my Department will be writing to regional planning bodies setting out further information which may be relevant in the context of preparing regional planning guidance.

  English Nature
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish a statement defining the strategic relationship between English Nature and his Department. [80902]

  Mr. Meale
  We have published today, the "English Nature Management Study", copies of which can be found in the House Libraries.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Export Licences
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many licences were(a) granted and (b) refused between 3 August and 31 December 1998 for

  261
  the export of military or police goods to (1) Angola, (2) Chad, (3) the Democratic Republic of Congo, (4) Namibia, (5) Uganda and (6) Zimbabwe; and if he will specify the number of licences granted in each of the categories set out under Part III of Schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994. [80502]

  Dr. Howells
  The entry in the relevant legislation under which the export of goods is controlled is known as their rating. The Export Control Organisation's computer databases have been interrogated and the following results were obtained. Between 3 August and 31 December 1998, 16 Standard Individual Export Licences (SIELs) and 7 Open Individual Export Licences (OIELs) were issued covering the export to consignees or end-users in the specified countries of goods subject to export control by being listed in Part III of Schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994, the so-called Military List. In the same period, no applications for such licences were refused. Individual licences may cover a range of goods with various ratings (and OIELs may also cover a range of countries). Where this is so, the licence is included in the Table in the total for all of the relevant ratings and/or countries.

  SIELs issued between 3 August 1998 and 31 December 1998 covering the export of goods on the Military List

  Number issued covering goods with this rating

  Angola

  Chad

  DR Congo

  Namibia

  Uganda

  Zimbabwe

  ML1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  3

  ML2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  ML3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  ML5

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  ML6

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  ML11

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  2

  ML13

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  ML15

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  PL 5017

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  PL 5031

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  PL 5033

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  OIELs issued between 3 August 1998 and 31 December 1998 covering the export of goods on the Military List

  Number issued covering goods with this rating

  Angola

  Chad

  DR Congo

  Namibia

  Uganda

  Zimbabwe

  MLI

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  ML2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  ML3

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  2

  ML10

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  ML15

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  PL 5002

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  2

  PL 5018

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  This information does not cover any Media OIELs that may have been issued during this period. Media OIELs authorise the export to all destinations of protective clothing, mainly for the protection of aid agency workers and journalists, when working in areas of conflict.

  This information should be considered in light of the answer given by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) to my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) on 30 October 1997, Official Report, columns 870–71.
  262
  In addition, goods on the Military List may have been exported under certain Open General Export Licences; copies of all Open General Export Licences valid at any time during the period are in the Library of House.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many export licences for the export of military equipment to Sri Lanka have been refused in each of the last five years. [80439]

  Dr. Howells
  The entry in the relevant legislation under which the export of goods is controlled is known as their rating. The Export Control Organisation's computer databases have been interrogated and the following results were obtained. Between 1 January 1994 and 31 December 1998, six applications for Standard Individual Export Licences covering the export to consignees or end-users in Sri Lanka of goods subject to export control by being listed in Part III of Schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994, the so-called Military List, were refused. In the same period, no applications for Open Individual Export Licences covering such exports were refused. Individual licences may cover a range of goods with various ratings. Where this is so, the licence is included in the Table in the total for all of the relevant ratings.

  Individual Licences refused in each calendar year covering the export to Sri Lanka of goods on the Military List

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Number of refusals

  2

  0

  1

  0

  3

  Number of applications refused in each year covering goods with this rating

  ML1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  3

  ML2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  ML3

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  ML4

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  This information does not cover any applications for Media OIELs that have been refused during this period. Media OIELs authorise the export to all destinations of protective clothing, mainly for the protection of aid agency workers and journalists, when working in areas of conflict.

  This information should be considered in light of the answer given by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) to my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) on 30 October 1997, Official Report, columns 870–71.

  Supermarkets
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make it his policy to ensure any reference of supermarkets to the MMC includes a request that the investigation considers the commercial relationships between supermarkets and (i) farmers and (ii) growers.[80583]

  Dr. Howells
  The Director General of Fair Trading announced on 8 April that he had referred supermarkets to the Competition Commission. The terms of reference are a matter for him. In his press notice (a copy of which is in the Library of the House) announcing the reference the Director General identified as one important issue the
  263
  nature of the relationship between the multiples and their suppliers, including agricultural producers and the ways in which buyer power is exerted.

  Arms Exports
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 9 February 1999,Official Report, columns 202–03, on export licences to Indonesia, for what reason the number of ML1 standard individual export licences listed for 1997 and 1998 was fewer than the number reported in the answer to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) of 8 April 1998, Official Report, columns 345–46. [80012]

  Dr. Howells
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) referred in her answer of 8 April 1998,Official Report, columns 345–46, to her earlier answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) on 30 October 1997, Official Report, columns 870–71, in which she had said that information derived from the Export Control Organisation's computer databases should be treated as indicative only because of problems that had been identified in them; and that new checking procedures had been introduced and would be backdated to cover information recorded since 2 May 1997.

  The discrepancy to which my hon. Friend draws attention arose because one export licence which actually only covered electronic goods with a rating of ML11 was found to have been recorded on the databases with ratings of ML11 and ML1. This error was corrected before I gave my answer of 9 February 1999, Official Report, columns 202–03; and that correction is the reason for the discrepancy. It did not affect the total number of licences or the number of licences with a rating of ML11 in either Answer.

  The information contained in the recent Annual Report on Strategic Export Controls may be treated as definitive, subject to the constraint that there is always some small risk of human error in the compilation of so much data.

  Consumer Councils
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about the Government's response to consultation on proposals to establish consumer councils for the energy, telecommunications and water sectors. [81139]

  Mr. Battle
  On 30 September last year, the Government published a consultation paper on their proposals for establishing independent consumer councils for the water, energy and telecommunications sectors. The establishment of independent consumer councils for the utility sectors is a vital element in the Government's broader agenda for reforming the framework for utility regulation so that it delivers a fair deal for consumers.

  The Government received over 130 responses to the consultation paper. In addition, they held discussions with a wide range of interested parties. These indicated strong support for the approach set out in the consultation paper.

  The consultation paper looked in detail at a number of important issues such as the functions and powers of the future consumer councils; their structure and organisation;
  264
  and the framework for establishing strong and constructive links with the utility regulators' offices. The Government have considered the representations made on these matters and announced their decisions on the way forward on 8 April.

  In taking forward proposals for the consumer councils, the Government have had four key concerns: firstly to create independent and influential consumer advocates, with a voice at the heart of the regulatory system, advising the utility regulators, utility companies and others on consumer issues; secondly, to ensure that all consumers have a one stop shop they can go to when they have unresolved grievances about the standards of service or conduct of a utility company; thirdly, to provide consumers with a source of good quality information and advice on getting the best deal from the utility markets. Influential councils and well-informed consumers can play a key part in driving standards up, and prices down. Finally, the new arrangements must provide for an open, professional and co-ordinated relationship between the new councils and the utility regulators.

  Implementation of the Government's proposals will require legislation. We intend to introduce legislation to implement these proposals along with the Government's other proposals for the reform of utility regulation as soon as Parliamentary time permits.

  These proposals are generally intended to apply to consumer arrangements in the whole of the UK. They do not, however, extend to Northern Ireland, in respect of the water and energy sectors, nor to Scotland in respect of the water sector.

  We propose to give the councils broad functions within the regulatory system. They will act as public advocates for all utility consumers in their sectors, and will be expected to provide information and advice on consumer issues to regulators, Government, Parliament, the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, the media and others. They will draw attention to areas requiring action by the companies, utility regulators and others. And they will publish information and advice of interest and assistance to consumers, such as advice on securing the best deal from utility companies. These broad functions will ensure that the councils have flexibility to investigate and advise on the consumer issues of the moment.

  These functions will be underpinned by a research capacity to ensure that issues of concern to consumers, including particular groups of consumers such as the disadvantaged or small businesses, or those in a particular region, can be investigated, and that the councils can speak with knowledge and authority.

  In addition, we propose giving the councils the specific task of handling consumer complaints against utility companies where these have not been resolved by the company concerned. Where possible, we will expect the councils to try to mediate a satisfactory outcome between the company and the complainant. Where further action such as enforcement action may be required, the council will also pass the complaint on to the appropriate regulatory authority. We also anticipate the councils working constructively with the utility companies to reduce the causes of complaints.
  265
  An effective framework for collaboration between the councils and the utility regulators will be required. To achieve this, we intend to place a duty on the council and the relevant utility regulator to agree and then publish a memorandum of understanding (MoU). The detailed content will be a matter for the parties to agree, but we expect it to cover such matters as the practical arrangements for consultation between them, the co-ordination of requests for information from the utility companies, the exchange of information, and the co-ordination of work on consumer-related issues. We also propose that the water consumer council and the drinking water inspectorate should be placed under a similar duty to agree and publish an MoU to cover co-operation between them on water quality issues and the handling of water quality complaints.

  The councils' powers to access information will need a basis in statute. We intend to give the councils direct rights of access to the information they need from utilities so that unresolved customer complaints can be investigated. In addition, we propose that councils should receive copies of any monitoring returns that utility companies are required to send to the utility regulators to demonstrate compliance with codes of practice on complaints handling. This is intended to assist the councils in their task of tackling the causes of consumer complaints at source.

  We propose that other types of information should be obtained by making a request to the relevant utility regulator, or to the drinking water inspectorate, where it cannot be obtained from the utility companies on a voluntary basis. Consistent with their existing functions, we intend to give the utility regulators and the drinking water inspectorate powers to obtain information from the utilities on behalf of the councils as well as for themselves, and we intend to make the councils bodies to whom they can disclose information. These bodies will be required to comply with reasonable requests from the councils for information, both information that they hold already or have generated themselves, and new information which needs to be obtained from the utility companies. Where a request is declined, these bodies will need to give reasons. There will be reciprocal obligations on the councils to provide information to the utility regulators or to the drinking water inspectorate on similar terms.

  These are strong information-gathering powers which will ensure that the councils have access to the information they will need in order to play an influential and informed role within the regulatory system. The powers are consistent with the Government's vision of the councils as independent, effective consumer champions.

  The Government wish to establish focused and professional consumer councils. The optimum number of council members may vary between the utility sectors, and over time. Accordingly, we propose that the legislation should not specify a minimum or a maximum number of council members. This will provide the necessary flexibility. Appointments to the councils and approval of their budgets will be a matter for the Government, thus ensuring their independence from the utility regulators. Their resources will be raised, wherever possible, through licence fees, and they will be required to operate in an accountable and transparent fashion.
  266
  The Government fully recognise the importance of the regional dimension in the provision of utility services, and recognise that some issues and concerns may be best addressed at a regional level. They also recognise that regional arrangements will need to be different in different sectors, depending on the structure of the industry.

  We propose to give the telecoms and energy councils a duty to ensure that regional needs are addressed efficiently and effectively, and that their work is informed by an awareness of regional issues. To meet this duty, the telecoms and energy councils will be given flexible powers to establish regional offices where they need them, and to appoint regional committees or panels where these are needed to help address customer complaints and other issues. These powers will give the councils the flexibility to change their regional arrangements in response to market developments in their utility sectors. The councils will be required to obtain the consent of the Secretary of State for their regional arrangements and to consult the Secretary of State on the appointment of any regional chairmen. In addition, the national energy council will be required to maintain offices and an appropriate consumer committee or panel structure in Scotland and Wales. The national telecommunications council will be required to maintain similar arrangements in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

  In the water sector, the Government propose to take an approach which reflects the particularly strong regional dimension in water supply, and the forthcoming devolution of certain functions to the National Assembly for Wales. The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions will therefore be given powers to determine the regional structure of the water consumer council (to include an office and consumer committee in Wales), and powers to appoint both the regional chairmen of committees operating in England, and members of the national council. The appointment of the chairman to the Welsh consumer committee will be made by the Welsh Assembly. The national council will make the other appointments in line with guidance issued by the Secretary of State in respect of English regional committees, and guidance issued by the Welsh Assembly in respect of the Welsh consumer committee. The guidance will be designed to ensure that the appointments adequately reflect local consumer interests. As for the other utility councils, it is intended that the regional organisation will operate as part of a single public body.

  More generally, detailed operational matters are best left to the councils. The Government do not therefore wish to legislate on specific matters such as call centre arrangements, or on the detailed arrangements for handling complaints. These arrangements may need to change over time, and are not matters for legislation.

  The Government wish to ensure that the work of all the councils and any regional or other specialist committees is professional, and that work on such committees is attractive to a wide cross-section of the community. To this end all the councils will be given powers to remunerate the members of any regional or other specialist committees where appropriate.

  More generally, the councils may find it useful to establish operational links with other regulators such as the Environment Agency, the Health and Safety Executive and the Electricity Engineering Inspectorate, and with

  267
  consumer bodies such as local authority Trading Standards Offices, and Citizens' Advice Bureaux. We propose to give the councils powers to establish MoUs or other arrangements with these and other organisations where appropriate, to ensure the effective referral of consumer concerns to those who can best deal or act on them.

  In the water sector, the Government also propose to improve the arrangements by which service standards are set. Standards can currently be set only by the Secretary of State in response to a specific proposition from the economic regulator. We believe that this is no longer appropriate in a sector where standards may need to be set for environmental and public health reasons beyond the scope of the economic regulator's functions. We propose, therefore, to extend the existing arrangements so that the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions in respect of England, and the Welsh Assembly in respect of Wales, can initiate proposals for new or amended service standards, subject to public consultation. The new procedure would normally only be exercised by the Secretary of State and the Welsh Assembly in respect of standards raising environmental and public health issues. Where any new or amended standards had a significant financial effect, they would trigger existing provisions in the water companies' conditions of appointment that enable costs to be passed through.

  Steps will be taken to ensure a smooth transition from the existing consumer bodies to the new councils, with the existing bodies being wound up when the transition has been achieved. This will ensure that consumer interests are effectively addressed during the interim, and that the councils can operate effectively from the moment they take over.

  Government will not be able to achieve the results they want without high quality staff. Already, within existing organisations, there are staff who are doing some of the things the consumer councils will be doing, and doing it well. Steps will need to be taken to ensure that full use is made of this existing expertise. Staff will need to be transferred or seconded to the councils. Staffing arrangements will be a matter for detailed discussion between the staff concerned, the utility regulators, the Gas Consumers' Council (in respect of the energy council), and any relevant unions.

  These proposals, taken together, will ensure that consumers have the strong and independent voice they need, and thereby help to ensure that the regulatory regime is able to respond promptly and efficiently to meet their needs.

  I am placing a list of the organisations and individuals who responded to the consultation paper, excluding those who requested confidentiality, in the Library of the House.

  Chemical Weapons Act 1996
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about the operation of the Chemical Weapons Act 1996. [81140]

  Dr. Howells
  In accordance with the Act, I have placed a report on its implementation during 1998 in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Gas Power Station, Baglan Bay
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will announce his decision on the notification under section 14(1) of the Energy Act 1976 by the Baglan Cogeneration Company to use natural gas as the fuel at a proposed combined cycle gas turbine power station at Baglan Bay in South West Wales. [81141]

  Mr. Byers
  I announced on Wednesday 7 April my conclusion that the potential benefits of a proposed new 500 Megawatt gas-fired power station at Baglan Bay, South Wales, particularly in terms of local employment and economic regeneration, are such that I have decided not to use my powers under section 14(3) of the Energy Act 1976 to halt or defer this project.

  Copies of the Press Notice and decision letter have been placed in the Library of the House. The general policy on power station consents is set out in the Government's October 1998 Energy White Paper and remains in force.

HEALTH

  Hospital Discharges
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made with the review of hospital discharge procedures; and if he will make a statement. [80458]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 13 April 1999]: We expect to be able to go out to consultation in the summer on a draft of the revised guidance with a view to issuing final revised guidance before the end of 1999.

  Brumby Hospital, Scunthorpe
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to reach a decision regarding the future of Brumby Hospital, Scunthorpe. [80283]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 13 April 1999]A decision on the proposal to relocate Inpatient and Day Hospital Services from Brumby Hospital to Scunthorpe and Goole Hospitals NHS Trust will be made shortly, once Ministers have had the opportunity to consider all relevant factors. Ministers will only approve changes which result in improved health services for local people.

  Lamotrigine
  Mr. Lock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 30 March 1999,Official Report, columns 656–57, on Lamotrigine, if he will list for each further evaluation undertaken or commissioned by the Medicines Control Agency in respect of Lamotrigine, (a) the name of the individual body who was instructed to carry out the further research, (b) the terms of reference of the research, (c) the cost of the research and (d) when and where the results of the research were or are planned to be published. [80229]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 13 April 1999]The safety of all marketed medicines is continually monitored by the Medicines Control Agency through the Yellow Card Scheme which collects reports of suspected adverse reactions. Lamotrigine is closely monitored under the Black Triangle Scheme, by which new drugs are
  269
  intensively monitored for the first few years of marketing until their safety profile is established. Marketing Authorisation holders are responsible for providing the Medicines Control Agency with all information relating to the safety of their drugs. In addition, owing to the issue of serious skin reactions associated with Lamotrigine, the safety of Lamotrigine is reviewed regularly at a European level at the Pharmacovigilance Working Party of the Committee on Proprietary Medicinal Products. Information about the safety of Lamotrigine in general, and skin reactions in particular, were published in the Medicines Control Agency/Committee on Safety of Medicines drug safety bulletin "Current Problems in Pharmacovigilance" in February 1993, October 1996 and May 1997. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  The Medicines Control Agency has not commissioned any research in respect of Lamotrigine.

  Treaty of Amsterdam
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list each of the new responsibilities which he will assume when the signed Treaty of Amsterdam takes effect and for each(a) the likely effect on departmental staffing, (b) the bodies or persons in the European Union principally concerned and (c) the relevant section of that treaty and the consolidated treaties of the European Union and European Community.[80415]

  Ms Jowell
  My responsibilities are to ensure that, within the context of the Government's overall policy on the European Union, Community activities in the field of public health add value and address objectives which cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States acting alone. The coming into force of the Amsterdam Treaty will not alter those responsibilities. It will have minimal impact directly on the Department and its staffing. There will be an increased role for the European Parliament following amendments to Article 129 (renumbered Article 152) of the Treaty. These provide for measures to be adopted, through the co-decision procedure, to set high standards of quality and safety of organs and substances of human origin, blood and blood derivatives and in the veterinary and phytosanitary fields which have as their direct objective the protection of human health.

  Biggleswade and Steppingly Hospitals
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received about the proposed closure of Biggleswade and Steppingly hospitals from(a) health professionals and (b) others. [80579]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 13 April 1999]We have received written representations from my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall) and from Councillor Robin Younger of Bedfordshire County Council.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library the surveys commissioned by the area health authority into the viability of Biggleswade and Steppingly Hospitals. [80578]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 13 April 1999]The documents commissioned by Bedfordshire Health Authority into the viability of Biggleswade and Steppingly Hospitals will be placed in the Library.

  Intensive Care (Hampshire)
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provision of intensive care beds there is in the Portsmouth and South East Hampshire Health Authority area; and what estimate he has made of the changes in each of the next five years. [80571]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 13 April 1999]Intensive care provision in Portsmouth and South East Hampshire Health Authority is at Portsmouth Hospitals National Health Service Trust. Results from a pilot census indicated that on 1 December 1998, Portsmouth NHS Trust had 10 general intensive care beds. A more reliable figure from the first full census of 31 March 1999 is expected to be available in May. Both figures give a snapshot on the census day and the actual number of intensive care beds on another day may be different.

  In addition, there are up to a maximum of four general intensive care bed spaces based at the Royal Hospital Haslar.

  The health authority are currently considering further provision of health services in the area following the proposed closure of the Royal Hospital Haslar in Gosport.

  Neurological Conditions
  Audrey Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will review the extent to which purchasers develop care pathways for patients with neurological conditions. [80595]

  Mr. Hutton
  Service agreements should be the basis for continuing dialogue between all those involved in the care pathway to ensure that arrangements are developing as planned and that any problems are addressed in good time. Arrangements for monitoring and review will also need to be built in. If a problem arises, the emphasis in the first instance will be on a local resolution.

  Consideration will be given to reviewing the extent to which purchasers develop care pathways for patients with neurological conditions if this proves necessary.

  Clinical Terms Version 3
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the report of the independent evaluation of Clinical Terms Version 3 (the Read Codes); and if he will make a statement. [81073]

  Mr. Denham
  The evaluation of Clinical Terms Version 3 (the Read Codes) is being carried out in three stages. The first stage has now been completed and copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  The second stage of the Evaluation is currently underway and will produce a methodology for long term evaluation of the Clinical Terminology in live use in the National Health Service. This methodology will then be used in stage three of the evaluation, which will involve continuous evaluation of the effective use of Clinical Terminologies in the NHS.
  271
  As a result of recommendations made in the report the NHS Executive intends to mandate the use of a coded clinical terminology (currently Clinical Terms Version 3) and has entered into an Agreement with the College of American Pathologists to create a new international standard which combines CAP's SNOMEDTM with the Clinical Terms Version 3 (Read Codes).

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of expenditure to date by the NHS to resolve the year 2000 computer problem; and if he will make a statement. [79726]

  Mr. Denham
  An analysis of quarterly monitoring returns for the period ended 31 December 1998, the latest available, shows the estimated total cost to be approximately £321 million. Further estimates will become available as future returns are made.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans the NHS has made to limit the risks to the provision of NHS services as a consequence of the year 2000 computer problem; and if he will make a statement.[79727]

  Mr. Denham
  There is a comprehensive programme for National Health Service Year 2000 preparations that reports progress via my right hon. Friend the President of the Council's quarterly statements to Parliament. The programme ensures that NHS organisations minimise the risks to the provisions of NHS services as a consequence of the year 2000 problem through the provision of guidance, attention to external suppliers, frequent monitoring of progress, independent assessment, performance management and disclosure of progress.

  Task Forces and Policy Reviews
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish a list of (1) task forces and (2) policy reviews established by his Department since May 1997 which(a) had external members recruited by way of public advertisement, and details of any person so appointed and (b) engaged in public consultation exercises, and the form that these took. [74462]

  Ms Jowell
  Most task forces and reviews are short-term bodies established to give thorough consideration to important and difficult issues. External members are invited to sit on some reviews and task forces because they are able to contribute specific experience and expertise. In such cases, public advertising would be inappropriate and disproportionate.

  Since 1 October 1998, appointments to those task forces which qualify for classification as advisory non-departmental public bodies have come within the remit of the Commissioner for Public Appointments.

  It is rare for task forces and reviews to engage in public consultation exercises. Where, exceptionally, comments from the public or representative organisations are sought, a consultation document might be published inviting a response, as in the Review of the United Kingdom Transplant Support Service Authority.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Millennium Dome (Environmental Policy)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport which non-governmental organisations have been consulted in respect of environmental aspects of the Millennium Experience; what plans there are to include exhibitions on British energy saving and environmental technologies; and if he will list the environmental issues which have been taken into account in the planning, construction and operation of the Dome. [70662]

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to use renewable energy sources to power the Millennium Dome. [75685]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 11 March 1999]The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) recognises the unique opportunity afforded by the Millennium Experience project to adopt positive environmental policies across all aspects of the project, including planning; construction; and operation. NMEC is doing so wherever possible, recognising the time and budgetary constraints within which it is operating. Underpinning NMEC's operation is its Environmental Plan (including targets and objectives) which has been presented to non-governmental organisations, and was approved by Greenwich Council in mid-1998. The Environmental Plan is regularly reviewed. The Plan is sent to all companies tendering for works, goods and services and they are required to include in their bids, statements of their own environmental polices.

  A number of innovative environmental initiatives are already in progress on site. Following discussions with the NMEC, Thames Water is installing a state-of-the-art grey water recycling scheme at the Dome. During the year of operation, the NMEC will adopt a waste management strategy based on the concepts of waste reduction, re-use, recycling and efficient removal from the site, providing opportunities for innovative demonstration environmental projects. NMEC is also investigating supply strategies that will minimise the quantity of packaging coming onto the site and facilities to allow separation of those major waste streams that are generated in order that they can be processed or recycled efficiently. There is daily monitoring of dust and noise levels and robust systems are in place to ensure immediate response should any problems arise. Two firms of independent environmental consultants have reviewed the environmental health and safety and the environmental integrity of the site.

  The Dome structure was conceived and developed as an energy and resource efficient means of housing a range of exhibits and attractions appropriate to the conditions of the Greenwich peninsula site. The Dome does not provide a conventionally controlled environment; it is not air-conditioned, and heating and cooling provisions have been minimised to reflect the fact that visitors will be wearing clothing appropriate to outdoor conditions. In addition, the translucency of the Dome cladding material allows the interior to be naturally lit for much of the year. It is inevitable that operating a large scale visitor attraction requires a significant quantity of power, but NMEC will seek to minimise this requirement wherever it is practicable to do so.
  273
  In the early stages of the development of the National zone, in which there will be a significant focus on environmental matters, meetings were held with representatives from the Council of Rural England, Greenpeace, and the Natural Foresight Panel (DTI). The Environment Agency has ongoing liaison with the NMEC in light of its statutory role and responsibilities and in the light of its work in regenerating Thames River bank areas adjacent to the Dome site. In this latter respect the Dome has provided the catalyst for the creation of a new river bank ecology and ecological terrace as well as for regeneration of the Peninsula as a whole. The NMEC also has ongoing contacts with non-governmental organisations such as Greenpeace.

  The National zone will explore the UK's relationship with the environment and its structure will optimise use of environmentally positive materials and techniques. The Local zone, unveiled on BBC Television's Blue Peter programme earlier this year, will be one of the largest recycled cardboard structures in the world. Children across the UK have been invited to participate in the creation of the zone. Other exhibit zones and areas within the Dome will also incorporate and address issues which have an environmental aspect.

  Millennium Dome (School Visits)
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Education and Employment regarding terms and conditions for teachers accompanying groups of pupils visiting the Millennium Dome. [78165]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 22 March 1999]The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) is in consultation with the Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) as part of the process of developing management plans for school and education visits. The procedures which the NMEC will adopt and operate will be based on established procedures for other visitor attractions. The ratio of children to teachers will be one adult to every six pupils in years 1 to 3 and special needs groups; one adult to every ten pupils in years 4 to 6; and one adult to every fifteen pupils in years 7 and above. Adults accompanying children in these groups will be admitted to the Dome free of charge.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what assessment he has made of the impact on the New Millennium Experience Company's budget for the Dome of granting free access to school parties; [78178]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the effect on overall visitor numbers to the Dome of the policy of granting free access to school parties. [77999]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 22 March 1999]The New Millennium Experience Company's (NMEC) ticketing strategy provides for up to one million free admissions for school children on the Education Tours Scheme. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced details of this scheme in the House on 17 March 1999,Official Report, columns 1117. Copies of the NMEC's press release detailing the operation of the scheme have been placed in the Libraries of the House. Over and above this scheme, schools will be able to take advantage of the education visits discounted group rates.
  274
  The NMEC remains confident that its forecast of 12 million visits remains achievable and that the children taking part in the Education Tour Scheme can be accommodated within that forecast. The Millennium Experience project remains within its £758 cash budget taking into account the free school admissions provision.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Education and Employment regarding the cost of overnight accommodation for parties of school children and teachers visiting the Millennium Dome. [78167]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 22 March 1999]The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) is not responsible for accommodation arrangements for visitors to the Millennium Experience at Greenwich. However, the NMEC is in discussion with the travel trade to encourage and facilitate attractive packages for those requiring overnight accommodation. For school children in organised groups, the NMEC has instigated a range of options for overnight accommodation with a number of youth hostels and higher education institutions who have expressed interest in providing safe, clean and affordable accommodation for school groups.

  Millennium Dome (Transport)
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what negotiations the New Millennium Experience Company has had with London Transport regarding free or discounted tube or bus travel to the Millennium Dome. [78888]

  Janet Anderson
  The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) is in constructive discussion with London Transport about a special Millennium travel ticket which will provide a good deal for visitors to the Dome. Details are currently being negotiated with all interested parties.

  Millennium Dome (British Engineering)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has for exhibits in the Millennium Dome which promote public understanding of British engineering. [77856]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 25 March 1999]The Millennium Dome itself, and the individual exhibits within it, are striking examples of the capabilities and imagination of British designers, architects and engineers. Some elements of the exhibits will also address and reflect issues within the engineering field. In addition, the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) is working with the Design Council to accommodate a number of its innovative Millennium Products within the Dome. Aspects of the NMEC's school curriculum resource packs (which are issued to every school in the UK) deal with a range of construction and engineering issues involved in the building of the Dome.

  Greenwich Millennium Celebrations
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what discussions he has had with (a) Bexley and Greenwich Health Authority
  275
  and (b) Greenwich Healthcare NHS Trust regarding the millennium celebrations; and if he will make a statement; [79315]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the need for health care services in Greenwich arising from the millennium celebrations; and if he will make a statement; [79316]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the likely demand for emergency ambulance services arising from the millennium celebrations; and if he will make a statement. [79317]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 29 March 1999]I refer my hon. Friend to the answers given by the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), on 29 March 1999,Official Report, columns 498–99. The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) has been in discussion for over twelve months with Bexley and Greenwich Health Authority, Greenwich Healthcare Trust and the London Ambulance Service about health and emergency planning issues. The NMEC is also represented on the Health Authority Millennium Co-ordinating Group which is, among other things, working with the NMEC on issues to do with health care on the Dome site. The London Ambulance Service is represented on all these forums and attends a monthly meeting with all the emergency services, the NMEC and others. The NMEC also participate in the Safety Advisory Group established by the London Borough of Greenwich.

  Sports Funding
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has received regarding the establishment of a national sports endowment fund, from Lottery money, for sports funding. [79200]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 13 April 1999]I have received a number of representations on this matter from Members of Parliament and others.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  European Community Documents
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Council if she will list for each document of the European Community referred by the Select Committee on European Legislation to a European Standing Committee in Session 1997–98,(a) the date of referral, (b) the topic and numbers of the document, including the dates of (i) consideration in the Committee, (ii) subsequent resolution of the House and (iii) consideration, and substantive agreement in the Council of Ministers and (c) any consequential United Kingdom legislation arising therefrom. [79543]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The information requested for(a) and (b)(i) and (b)(ii) is contained in the document "European Community Documents, Session 1997–98", which was published on 19 November 1998 and is available in the Library of the House.

  I shall write to my hon. Friend shortly on the other information requested.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Media Allegations (Rebuttals)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list(a) those units in her Department and (b) the number of departmental staff which are concerned with preparing rebuttals of allegations in the media; and what is (i) the total cost of their work, including salaries, and (ii) the number of rebuttals issued since May 1997. [71846]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 22 February 1999]The Northern Ireland Information Service does not have a specialist rebuttal unit. It is part of the day-to-day responsibilities of all information officers to identify and seek to correct wherever possible misleading or inaccurate information.

  Environmental Appraisals
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what environmental appraisals of policy her Department has(a) completed, (b) started and (c) planned. [79617]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The available information is currently being collected by each Department to meet the Environmental Audit Committee's request for information on environmental appraisals as part of its second inquiry into the Greening Government Initiative.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of prosecutions for benefit fraud were prosecuted under the Theft Acts in each year since 1992–93.[79794]

  Mr. Timms
  Questions on Benefits Agency operational matters are the responsibility of its Chief Executive, Peter Mathison. He will write to my right hon. Friend.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Frank Field, dated 13 April 1999:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what proportion of prosecutions for benefit fraud were prosecuted under the Theft Acts in each year since 1992–3.

  The figures are not available for prosecutions for the years 1992 to 1995.

  In 1995/6 the Benefits Agency and the Employment Service together prosecuted a total of 13,972 cases. Of these, 320 cases were classed as Theft Act or Serious Fraud, and a further 420 were prosecuted by Organised Fraud teams. Specific figures for total prosecutions under the Theft Act were not compiled.

  I am able to give you the figures, as requested, for the financial year's 1996/7, 1997/8, and 1998/9. They are included in the attached table. For the year 1998/99, for the first time, we have prosecuted under the Theft Act where the amount of benefit involved is less than £5,000. This resulted in a further 2,169 prosecutions.

  I hope that this is helpful.
  277

  Prosecutions for benefit fraud

  Theft Act prosecutions

  Total prosecutions

  Percentage

  1996–97

  750

  11,770

  6.4

  1997–98

  835

  12,074

  6.9

  1998–99

  1,23,441

  8,268

  41.6

  1 Figures are as at 28 February 1999

  2 Includes prosecutions for the first time where the amount of benefit involved is less than £5,000

  Notes:

  Figures provided by BA Security

  Figures are provisional and subject to change

  Benefits Agency Medical Service
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the arrangements made by Sema/Nestor for recruitment under contract of sessional doctors to provide services under the Benefits Agency Medical Service contract. [80282]

  Mr. Bayley
  The administration of medical services for the Benefits Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, Peter Mathison. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Philip Hammond, dated 13 April 1999:

  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what assessment he has made of the arrangements made by Sema/Nestor for recruitment under contract of sessional doctors to provide services under the Benefits Agency Medical Services contract.

  Sema Group was awarded the contract for the provision of medical services for the Benefits Agency on 1 September 1998. The arrangements they have made have been very successful. Currently a pool of 2,951 doctors are available to provide medical examinations, 2,529 of whom have signed formal contracts.

  When Sema became responsible for the medical service they identified a small number of locations where the Agency was experiencing difficulties in recruiting doctors. The pool of doctors currently available has enabled them to steadily improve their performance against service levels in key benefits. In addition, other methods such as moving doctors voluntarily are being employed to cover any shortfalls. Sema Group now has a sufficient number of doctors to enable them to deliver performance against agreed service levels.

  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Tariff Income Schedule
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants of income support over the age of 60 years are affected by the tariff income schedule regime; and what reduction of expenditure on income support is achieved by the schedule. [80505]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the table.

  Income support recipients aged over 60 years old with tariff income taken into account, average amount taken into account and estimated expenditure savings, 1997–98

  Period

  Numbers with tariff income taken into account

  Average weekly amount (£)

  Estimated expenditure savings (£)

  May 1997

  78,000

  6.25

  6,316,000

  August 1997

  78,000

  6,31

  6,430,000

  278

  Income support recipients aged over 60 years old with tariff income taken into account, average amount taken into account and estimated expenditure savings, 1997–98

  Period

  Numbers with tariff income taken into account

  Average weekly amount (£)

  Estimated expenditure savings (£)

  November 1997

  83,000

  6.34

  6,838,000

  February 1998

  89,000

  6,92

  7,961,000

  All quarters (97–98)

  27,545,000

  Notes:

  1. The estimate represents a four quarter total taken from the Income Support Statistics Quarterly Inquiries for May 1997 to February 1998. The quarterly inquiries are based on a 5 per cent. sample of all Income Support cases and as such are subject to a degree of sampling error.

  2. Figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand and may not sum owing to rounding.

  3. Reduced expenditure arising from the tariff income schedule regime has been estimated by using the average amount taken into account for tariff income cases during each quarter.

  Source:

  Income Support Statistics Quarterly Inquiries, May 1997-February 1998.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the numbers of potential claimants of income support who are prevented from qualifying for income support as a result of the tariff income schedule regime. [80506]

  Angela Eagle
  This information is not currently available. Estimates of the number of potential claimants prevented from qualifying for Income Support as a result of the tariff income regime are based on the data used to produce the published estimates of take-up of income related benefits. These estimates are currently being revised following the discovery in December of an error, the effect of which was to understate income brought to account, and will be republished in May.

  Savings Threshold
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to review the level of savings which requires his Department to assume an income of £1 for every £250 above that limit, when calculating benefits; and if he will make a statement. [80666]

  Angela Eagle
  The assumption of notional (tariff) income of £1 for every £250 of capital above £3,000 reflects an expectation that people with more substantial savings can make some contribution towards their living expenses from those savings. This formula, which does not represent any assumed rate of interest, avoids the many practical difficulties that would arise if actual income were taken into account. However, we continue to review the benefit rules as part of our commitment to modernise the Social Security system.

  In particular, we are determined to help the poorest pensioners and are concerned about those who miss out on the Minimum Income Guarantee because of modest savings. We have made it clear in the Pensions Green Paper (cm 4179) that we want to look at options for changing the rules on the treatment of voluntary saving to

  279
  better reward those who have saved for their retirement, and intend to bring forward proposals later in this Parliament.

  Pensions
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the size and cost of the rebates required to implement the Partnership for Pensions proposals. [80509]

  Mr. Timms
  The proposals for Stakeholder Pensions and the State Second Pension will impact on the National Insurance rebate payable to those contracted-out of the State scheme. For Stakeholder Pensions, we will first need to look at the charging structure before determining the appropriate levels of National Insurance rebates. We expect to consult with the Government Actuary's Department later in the year and would aim to lay any Rebate Orders before 6 April 2000, a year before the planned introduction of Stakeholder Pensions in April 2001.

  The scheduled introduction of the State Second Pension in April 2002 will coincide with the introduction of any new rebates arising from the next full review that will take place during the 2000–01 tax year. The review will include full consultation, and will set out the level of rebate considered appropriate to compensate for the new State benefits forgone.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he plans to require providers of stakeholder pensions to have a duty to offer advice with utmost good faith to potential customers; [80507]

  (2) if he plans to require his Department (a) to offer advice, (b) to pay for independent advice and (c) to provide a channel to authorised independent advice, on the switch between the state second pension and the stakeholder pension proposed in his Partnership for Pensions. [80508]

  Mr. Timms
  The arrangements for the provision of information and advice to those considering joining stakeholder pension schemes are subject to further consultation. Further details will be set out in due course.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the proportion of (i) pensioner couples, (ii) single male pensioners, (iii) single female pensioners and (iv) pensioners in total aged(a) 65 to 69, (b) 70 to 74, (c) 75 to 79 and (d) 80 years or above who are in receipt of income from an occupational pension; and if he will list for each group the mean and median amounts received. [80422]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is in the tables.

  The methodology used is consistent with The Pensioners' Incomes Series 1996–97. Estimates of the proportions in receipt of occupational pension income should be regarded as provisional. This is because they are based partly on data extrapolated from the Government Actuary's Department Surveys of Occupational Pensions, which are published approximately every five years, with the most recent surveys relating to 1991. Estimates are likely to be revised when the latest survey is published.
  280
  Estimates of mean and median amounts can be regarded as final.

  Proportion of pensioners in receipt of income from an occupational pension

  Percentage

  Age band

  65 to 69

  70 to 74

  75 to 79

  80 or above

  Pensioner couples

  77

  78

  75

  65

  Single male pensioners

  54

  58

  61

  56

  Single female pensioners

  69

  65

  61

  51

  All pensioner units

  70

  70

  66

  55

  Mean amount of occupational pension income for those in receipt—July 1996 prices

  £ per week

  Age band

  65 to 69

  70 to 74

  75 to 79

  80 or above

  Pensioner couples

  132

  112

  98

  87

  Single male pensioners

  88

  96

  63

  63

  Single female pensioners

  63

  58

  51

  44

  All pensioner units

  109

  92

  74

  61

  Median amount of occupational pension income for those in receipt—July 1996 prices

  £per week

  Age band

  65 to 69

  70 to 74

  75 to 79

  80 or above

  Pensioner couples

  87

  67

  52

  50

  Single male pensioners

  59

  55

  37

  39

  Single female pensioners

  37

  34

  29

  27

  All pensioner units

  66

  52

  39

  32

  Notes:

  1. Estimates of the proportion of pensioner units in receipt of occupational pension income are based upon data from the Family Resources Survey 1996–97, controlled to a number of individual recipients which is extrapolated from the Surveys of Occupational Pensions of the Government Actuary's Department.

  2. Estimates of the proportions with occupational pension income should be treated as provisional.

  3. Pensioner units are defined as single people above State pension age (60 and over for women, 65 and over for men) and couples (married or cohabiting) where the man is over State pension age.

  4. Pensioner couples have been allocated to age bands according to the age of the man.

  5. The occupational pension income category includes income received by widows on the basis of their late spouse's contributions to an occupational pension scheme.

  Sources:

  Family Resources Survey 1996–97, Government Actuary's Department Surveys of Occupational Pensions 1991.

  Bereavement Allowance
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) widowers and (b) widows he expects to be entitled to the bereavement payment in (i) the first full year of implementation and (ii) 2020. [80656]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 13 April 1999]It is estimated that around 20,000 widowers and around 40,000 widows will be entitled to the Bereavement Payment in the first full year of implementation and in 2020, following equalisation of State Pension age at 65.
  281
  It is not possible to provide exact long-term estimates and therefore estimates for 2020 should be regarded as illustrative.

  Note:

  Figures have been supplied by the Government Actuary's Department. They are rounded to the nearest 10,000 and are subject to a wide range of uncertainty.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the estimated increase in the number of income support claimants as a result of the replacement of the widows pension by the bereavement allowance in (i) the first full year of implementation and (ii) 2020. [80658]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 13 April 1999]Information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows.

  In order to provide some idea of the scale of the likely effect, the following figures provide indicative estimates of the average increase in the number of Income Support claimants as a result of the proposed changes to Widows Pension. Estimates for 2020 should be regarded as illustrative.

  In the first full year, the increase in the number of Income Support recipients is estimated to be less than 5,000. It is estimated that this could rise to around 30,0003 by 2020.

  Notes:

  1. Estimates assume that a constant proportion of those affected by the proposed changes to Bereavement Benefits move on or off Income Support. Therefore the estimates for 2020 should be regarded as illustrative.

  2. Estimates use information from the 1995–6 Family Resources Survey, the May 1996 Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry and forecasts from the Government Actuary's Department concerning the number of men and women affected by the proposed changes.

  3. Figure rounded to the nearest 10.000.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) widowers and (b) widows he expects to be entitled to bereavement allowance in (i) the first full year of implementation and (ii) 2020. [80655]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 13 April 1999]It is estimated that around 10,000 widowers will be entitled to Bereavement Allowance from the first full year of implementation up to 2020. It is estimated that around 10,000 widows will be entitled to Bereavement Allowance in the first full year of implementation, increasing to around 20,000 by 2020 following equalisation of State Pension age at 65.

  It is not possible to provide exact long-term estimates and therefore estimates for 2020 should be regarded as illustrative.

  Notes:

  1. Figures have been supplied by the Government Actuary's Department. They are rounded to the nearest 10,000 and are subject to a wide range of uncertainty.

  2. Figures represent the average number of cases throughout the year. Hence the first full year is the second financial year following implementation.

  Widowed Parents Allowance
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) widowers and (b) widows
  282
  he expects to be entitled to widowed parents allowance in (i) the first full year of implementation and (ii) 2020. [80652]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 13 April 1999]Existing widowed fathers will be able to claim Widowed Parent's Allowance from the date the new scheme is implemented. We estimate that around 20,000 widowers will be entitled to Widowed Parent's Allowance in each year up to 2020.

  We estimate that around 10,000 new widows will be entitled to Widowed Parent's Allowance in the full first year of implementation, building up to around 30,000 by 2020. Existing widowed mothers will continue to receive Widowed Mother's Allowance.

  It is not possible to provide exact long-term estimates and therefore estimates for 2020 should be regarded as illustrative.

  Notes:

  1. Figures have been supplied by the Government Actuary's Department. They are rounded to the nearest 10,000 and are subject to a wide range of uncertainty.

  2. Figures represent the average number of cases throughout the year. Hence, the first full year is the second financial year following implementation.

  Noise Exposure
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received about the need to extend to new industries arrangements for monitoring for noise exposure. [80028]

  Mr. Meale
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Noise at Work Regulations 1989, which require employers to make arrangements to assess their employees' exposure to loud noise at work, apply to all industries, including new industries, with the exception of ships at sea and aircraft taxiing or in flight.

SCOTLAND

  Class Sizes
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many primary school classes(a) had over 30 pupils in May 1997 and (b) currently have over 30 pupils.

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 10 March 1999]The information requested for May 1997 is not centrally available. The most recent figures are from the schools census carried out in September 1997 when 2,679 publicly funded primary school classes had more than 30 pupils. Figures for 1998 are not available yet.

  From 1 July 1999 this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament. [74554]

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) to whom the document, "Down to Earth—a Scottish Perspective on Sustainable Development", was distributed; and how it was distributed; [75821]
  283
  (2) how many copies of "Down to Earth—a Scottish Perspective on Sustainable Development", were printed; [75822]

  (3) what was the total cost, including research and departmental time, for producing and publishing "Down to Earth—a Scottish Perspective on Sustainable Development". [75823]

  Mr. Macdonald
  [holding answer 16 March 1999]"Down to Earth" was published on 3 February 1999 as part of our on-going programme to deliver our commitment to place sustainable development at the heart of policy making. We first indicated our intention to produce a Sustainable Action Plan for Scotland in September 1997. "Down to Earth" brought together work on sustainable development being undertaken in many parts of the Scottish Office and was co-ordinated by departmental staff as part of their normal duties. 4,000 copies were printed and a large proportion of these have

  Review/Inquiry

  Completion date/ Expected completion date

  Inquiry into the handling by Grampian Police of the Murder of Scott Greg Simpson

  April 1998

  Review of the Use of Custody for Women Offenders in Scotland

  May 1998

  Review of the Treatment of Vulnerable and Intimidated Witnesses

  November 1998

  Review of Scottish Crime Prevention Council

  March 1999

  Review of Child Protection Committees

  August 1999

  Review of Services for People with Learning Difficulties

  December 1999

  Review of National Curriculum for Children's Panel Member Training

  December 1999

  Review of Police Force and Fire Brigade Structures

  March 2000

  Review of the Sentencing and Treatment of Serious Violent and Sexual Offenders

  mid 2000

  SCRA Time Intervals Working Group—reviewing the processing of cases referred to the Children's Hearings System

  On-going monitoring and review role

  Advertising Campaigns
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the issues on which the Government have undertaken advertising campaigns in Scotland since they came into office; and how much they have spent on each campaign. [80054]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 13 April 1999]The details are as follows:

  Year/Campaign

  Spend (£)

  1997–98

  Bogus Callers

  37,000

  Childrens Hearings

  176,250

  Continence Campaign

  2,900

  Daily Record Health Supplement (NHS Green Paper)

  79,700

  Electoral Registration

  70,000

  Fire Prevention

  323,800

  Food Safety

  21,100

  Historic Scotland

  352,000

  Organ Donors

  41,300

  Referendum Reminder

  420,000

  Road Safety

  383,300

  Severe Weather

  46,000

  1998–99

  Children's Panels

  112,300

  Daily Record Health Supplement (NHS White Paper)

  77,000

  Democratising Scotland

  248,500

  Domestic Violence

  630,700

  Electoral Registration

  41,000

  Fire Prevention

  225,000

  284
  been distributed by the Scottish Office to a wide range of interested organisations and individuals in Scotland and beyond. Copies of the publication are available upon request and the full text has been placed on the internet. The cost of production and publishing was £20,283.

  From 1 July 1999 this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Home Department Reviews and Inquiries
  Sir Robert Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many reviews and inquiries have been announced on areas within the responsibility of the Scottish Home Department since 1 May 1997; what is the completion date or expected completion date in each case; and if he will make a statement. [80041]

  Mr. McLeish
  The following reviews and inquiries have been undertaken by the Scottish Office Home Department:

  Year/Campaign

  Spend (£)

  Food Safety

  21,150

  Fostering

  97,400

  Further Education

  70,000

  Historic Scotland

  410,000

  Local Government Commission

  78,000

  Nursing Recruitment

  258,300

  Pharmacy Point of Dispensing

  53,200

  Police Graduate Recruitment

  9,500

  Scottish Parliament Campaign

  1,785,000

  Teacher Recruitment

  4,200

WALES

  Aerospace Industry
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met members of the aerospace industry in Wales to discuss future prospects in the industry; and if he will make a statement. [79843]

  Mr. Hain
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last met representatives of the aerospace industry when he visited GE Aircraft Engine Services Ltd. at Nantgarw on 16 February, and I last met representatives when I visited British Airways Maintenance Cardiff on 1 February.

  Steel Industry
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the prospects for the steel industry in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [79847]

  Mr. Hain
  The Welsh steel industry is among the most competitive in the world. However, like others, it is experiencing very difficult trading conditions. The industry is therefore taking action to maintain its competitiveness, such as the introduction of new technology and team working. For example, British Steel has recently completed a £121 million investment in a new continuous annealing process line at Port Talbot, which represents the biggest single investment in the industry since privatisation.

  The Government are also supporting initiatives aimed at improving the industry's competitiveness. We have provided grant support through the UK Steel Association and Steel Training Ltd. for a range of projects involving benchmarking, education and training.

  Assisted Area Status
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the importance of assisted area status in the decisions of (i) United Kingdom and (ii) overseas companies concerning location and investment; and if he will make a statement. [79845]

  Mr. Hain
  The Welsh Office, together with the Department for Trade and Industry and the Scottish Office, have jointly commissioned "Arup Economics and Planning" to undertake an evaluation of Regional Selective Assistance (RSA) between 1991 and 1995. Amongst other things, it will look at the influence of RSA on investment decisions. The report is expected to be ready towards the middle of this year. Previous evaluations of RSA suggest that up to a fifth of RSA funded projects would have located outside the UK Assisted Areas in the absence of RSA.

  Teachers
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what additional resources are to be made available to him to implement the Government's proposals for the future of the teaching profession. [80441]

  Mr. Hain
  We announced in December last year that education and training in Wales will receive a total of £844 million extra over the next three years. This includes resources for the new pay and performance management arrangements proposed in the Green Paper on the future of the teaching profession in Wales. The costs of these will be over and above the cost of normal pay increases which have been taken into account in plans for the local government revenue settlements for 2000–01 and 2001–02.

  Decisions on education funding for 2000–01 onwards will be a matter for the National Assembly.

  National Assembly (Salaries)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will ensure that future percentage changes in the level of the salaries of members of the National Assembly will be linked to changes in the level of(a) the national minimum wage and (b) the basic state pension. [80587]

  Mr. Michael
  [holding answer 13 April 19991: This will be a matter for the National Assembly to determine. The Review Body on Senior Salaries has recommended that the salaries of Members of the National Assembly for Wales be uprated each year in line with Senior Civil Service pay, specifically by the same percentage as the average of the movements in the mid-points of the nine Senior Civil Service pay bands below Permanent Secretary.

  River Wye Navigation
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he plans to publish the report of the Inquiry into Navigation on the River Wye; and if he will make a statement. [80263]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Exchanges of correspondence are presently taking place between the Environment Agency, the applicants for the Wye Navigation Order, and an objector who has made post inquiry representations. This, together with the complexities involved in considering this case, means that the report is unlikely to be published prior to the establishment of the National Assembly for Wales.

  Treaty of Amsterdam
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list each of the new responsibilities which he will assume when the signed Treaty of Amsterdam takes effect and for each (i) the likely effect on departmental staffing, (ii) the bodies or persons in the European Union principally concerned and (iii) the relevant sections of that Treaty and the consolidated treaties of European Union and European Community. [80403]

  Mr. Hain
  The Treaty of Amsterdam is not expected to add to the range of policy areas for which the Welsh Office is responsible. We recognise, however, the need to implement the provisions of the Treaty so far as they relate to current areas of responsibility, the majority of which will transfer to the Welsh Assembly from 1 July 1999.

  Mental Health
  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of the total NHS budget in Wales was allocated to mental health services in each of the last three years.[80194]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The figures are as follows:

  1996–97: 4.7 per cent.

  1997–98: 3.4 per cent.

  1998–99: 3.3 per cent.

  These figures represent the funds specifically allocated from within the NHS Total to mental health services which includes mental illness and learning disability services. In 1997–98, some £30 million spent on local

  287
  authority strategies (representing 1.3 per cent. of the NHS Total) was transferred recurrently into the local authority revenue settlement. In addition to these amounts, Health Authorities will commission mental health services from within their discretionary funding allocations.

  Following the transfer of functions, this issue will be a matter for the National Assembly.

  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of inequalities in mental health treatment affecting members of the (i) black and (ii) other ethnic minority communities in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [80189]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  There has been no specific assessment and there is some doubt as to whether the numbers of ethnic minority mental health patients in Wales gives a sufficient base for robust findings. We shall consider the needs of ethnic minority patients when drawing our plans for future Strategies on both child and adolescent and adult mental health services.

  Following the transfer of functions, this issue will be a matter for the National Assembly.

  Mental illness

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  NHS hospitals:

  In-patient cases

  17,033

  18,182

  18,376

  17,841

  17,588

  Out-patient first attendances

  1—

  18,552

  18,624

  18,545

  21,589

  NHS day hospitals—first attendances

  5,670

  7,127

  4,846

  5,705

  5,580

  Persons seen by community psychiatric nurses2

  24,230

  26,419

  26,801

  32,681

  33,932

  1 Not available

  2 First contacts in the financial year

  Following the transfer of functions this will be a matter for the National Assembly.

  Wind Turbines
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will set out the reasons for his decision to approve six additional wind turbines at Cemmaes B; and if he will make a statement. [80452]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The reasons for the decision are set out in the Welsh Office letter of 16 March 1999, a copy of which has been placed in the House of Commons Library. Once a decision has issued it is final; in these circumstances it would not be appropriate for further comment to be made on the merits of the decision or the reasons for it.

  Following the transfer of functions, this issue will be a matter for the National Assembly.

  New and Renewable Energy
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the impact in Wales of the proposals in the Government's consultation paper, "New and Renewable Energy—Prospects for the 21st Century". [80242]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The Government intend working towards a target of renewable energy providing 10 per cent. of UK electricity supplies, cost effectively, as soon as possible. We hope to achieve this by 2010.
  288
  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the rates of(a) schizophrenia and (b) depression among (i) AfroCaribbeans and (ii) the population other than Afro-Caribbeans in Wales. [80190]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Reliable data are not available centrally on the ethnic group of patients treated in Wales. It is not sufficiently complete and consistently coded to be used for assessing differences between incident rates across ethnic groups. There is also doubt as to whether the numbers of ethnic minority mental health patients in Wales gives a sufficient base for robust findings.

  Following the transfer of functions, this issue will be a matter for the National Assembly.

  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many mental health patients were treated on the NHS in Wales over the last five years. [80191]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The available data, held centrally, are given in the following table. They do not, however, represent the numbers of individuals treated by the NHS over this period as one person could be included in more than one category or be discharged more than once from an NHS hospital during a year.

  The review document seeks views on a number of issues to enable the Government to frame future policies to meet their objectives of supporting renewables while they are reaching market prices and considers both the costs and benefits of moving towards greater use of renewables. In particular, the paper looks at options for a revised Non Fossil Fuel Obligation (NFFO) in the competitive energy markets of the future.

  The paper identifies key issues and challenges which the Government and industry would need to pursue.

  Wales already has rich reserves of renewable energy resources, especially wind and biomass. It is important, in terms of generating jobs and developing future industries, that it continues to build on this.

  I would encourage all interested parties in Wales to submit their views on the proposals so that they can play their part in framing future renewable energy policy.

  Planning Appeals
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the planning appeals in Wales since May 1997, in regard to which the Secretary of State for Wales has overturned the recommendation of the inspector; and if he will he make a statement. [80493]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  There have been no planning appeals in Wales under Section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, decided since May 1997, where the inspector's recommendation has been
  289
  overturned. On two occasions since May 1997 the recommendations of inspectors on applications called in for determination under Section 77 of the 1990 Act have been overturned.

  These were:

  an application for a detached dwelling at Trefil, Tredegar, Blaenau Gwent where the application was refused contrary to the recommendation of the inspector

  an application for six wind turbine generators at Cemmaes Wind farm, Mynydd y Cemmaes, Machynlleth, Powys where planning permission was granted for six turbines contrary to the recommendation of the inspector that only four be allowed.

  Following the transfer of functions, this issue will be a matter for the National Assembly.

  Supermarkets (Business Rate)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he has taken to review(a) the level of business rate which is paid by supermarkets in Wales and (b) the basis on which their liability to uniform business rate is calculated. [80208]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The current level of business rates paid by supermarkets in Wales is based on their rateable values, the "poundage" or "uniform business rate" fixed each year by the Secretary of State and the impact of any provisions for relief or exemptions. The rateable values broadly represent annual rentals for which the property might have been let on the open market in 1993, and are assessed using evidence of actual rents. All retail outlets in Wales are valued on this rental comparative method.

  No steps have been taken to review the level of rates paid by supermarkets. The next revaluation of all rateable values takes effect on 1 April 2000 and will be based on market rents on 1 April 1998.

  Following the transfer of functions this will be a matter for the National Assembly.

  Non-domestic Rating Liability
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the instances on which he has used his powers under the Local government Act 1988 to confer exemptions from non-domestic rating liability. [80492]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  There have been no instances of the Secretary of State using his power under Schedule 5 paragraph 20 of the Local Government Finance Act 1998.

  Following the transfer of functions this issue will be a matter for the National Assembly.

  Water Rates
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will issue an order, under section 2 of the Water Industry Act 1991, to require water supply undertakers in Wales to review their charging policy towards single person households with unmetered billing; [80207]

  (2) how many orders he has made under the provisions of section 2 of the Water Industry Act 1991 with regard to the services provided by water undertakers for elderly people; and if he will make a statement. [80212]
  290
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Section 2 of the Water Industry Act 1991 does not provide the Secretary of State with order making powers in respect of single person households or pensioners. The Water Industry Bill currently before Parliament provides for householders, including the elderly and single persons, to opt to be charged on a measured basis without paying any initial costs for the installation of a meter. This may help those using less water to pay less. If the arrangement did not suit their individual needs, customers would have the right, within the first 12 months of installation, to revert to unmeasured charging.

  The Government believe that households on low incomes or with special needs should have available to them a range of payment options. The Water Industry Bill will enable the Secretary of State to give guidance to the Director General of Water Services on matters to be taken into account in approving water companies' charges schemes. Such guidance could cover payment arrangements. The Bill also gives powers to specify by regulation matters which must be included in charges schemes. This power will enable specially targeted protection to be offered to particular categories of vulnerable customers. It is proposed that these powers to give guidance and make regulations will transfer to the National Assembly for Wales in respect of Dwr Cymru and Dee Valley Water. Clause 14 of the Bill will provide for a transfer of functions order to be made under section 22 of the Government of Wales Act 1998, without the need for an affirmative resolution procedure.

  National Assembly
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he proposes to make the first standing orders of the National Assembly for Wales. [81034]

  Mr. Michael
  I have now made the first standing orders for the Assembly in accordance with section 50 of the Government of Wales Act, and am arranging for copies to be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Nuclear Waste Storage
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy not to permit the storage of nuclear waste at Trecwn in Pembrokeshire. [80173]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  I understand that no application has been made to store nuclear waste at Trecwn. If one were, it would be fully considered on its facts, and against the background of representations from interested parties.

  The Secretary of State for Wales' responsibilities in this area are shortly to transfer to the National Assembly for Wales.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  IACS Checks
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the number of IACS checks carried out in each of the EU member states. [73291]
  291
  Mr. Rooker
  The following information has been provided by the European Commission for the total number of IACS applications subject to administrative checks in Member States during 1997:

  Member

  Number

  Luxembourg

  2,183

  Belgium

  45,019

  Netherlands

  51,276

  Denmark

  63,134

  Sweden

  66,745

  Finland

  79,644

  Ireland

  134,915

  United Kingdom

  146,241

  Portugal

  156,073

  Austria

  170,635

  Greece

  327,797

  Germany

  392,975

  Spain

  449,300

  France

  466,526

  Italy

  709,806

  All Member States also carried out on-the-spot controls in respect of a proportion of applications.

  Agriculture Council
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish the agenda for the Agriculture Council of 19 and 20 April. [79574]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  The Agriculture Council scheduled for 19 and 20 April has been cancelled.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer to hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe) of 18 March 1999,Official Report, column 819, concerning representations from the US Government, what was the nature of the representations received on each of the three occasions; what was the response of his Department in each case; and if he will make a statement. [80109]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 13 April 1999]A wide range of agri/food issues of mutual interest to the UK and US Governments were discussed during the meetings in question and the UK' s commitment to a science based approach to biotechnology which both protects public health and the environment, was made clear.

  Food Standards Agency
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has had from(a) farmers and (b) farming organisations regarding funding proposals for the Food Standards Agency. [79880]

  Mr. Rooker
  We have received a number of representations, both formal and informal, from a variety of farming organisations and individual farmers during the recent public consultation on the draft Food Standards Bill and associated proposals for a levy scheme. Many criticised the levy proposals and suggested that alternative methods of funding the Agency be found.
  292
  We are now reviewing these responses, along with all the others received during the consultation, and will consider carefully all the comments made before deciding how to proceed.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many representations his Department has received on the calculation regarding the funding of the Food Standards Agency; and how many were in favour of the fixed £90 levy on food distributors. [80037]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 13 April 1999]We received nearly a thousand responses to public consultation on the draft Food Standards Bill and associated proposals for a levy scheme. Over three quarters of these commented directly on the levy proposals. A large majority criticised the proposal that the levy be set at a flat rate, and suggested that alternative methods of funding the Agency be found or that the levy be graduated.

  We are now reviewing these responses and will consider carefully all the comments made before deciding how to proceed.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he had with small retailers prior to drawing up his proposals for the Food Standards Agency; what estimate he has made of the likely cost to each food retailer of the Food Standards Agency over the first five years of its operation; and if he will make a statement. [80144]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 13 April 1999]Organisations and individuals representing the entire range of interests affected by the Food Standards Agency were included in consultations on Professor James's report in 1997, the subsequent White Paper in 1998 and on the draft Food Standards Bill and associated levy proposals earlier this year. In addition, I have held a number of regional meetings and officials have discussed the possible impact of the draft proposals with organisations representing small businesses.

  The cost to food retailers over the first five years of the Agency's operation will depend on the initial rate of levy set and any amendments made during that period. Our proposal was that the levy should be set at £90 per annum. We are now considering the responses to the consultation. Additional costs due to the exercise of the Agency's functions cannot be anticipated. The draft Bill does, however, require the Agency to take account of the risks, costs and benefits of its proposed actions, consulting interested parties wherever possible.

  Badgers
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made based on badger road-kills as to the extent of their tuberculosis infection. [80486]

  Mr. Rooker
  Until August 1990 badger carcases were collected and sampled as part of a national road traffic accident (RTA) survey of badgers. Since then RTA badger carcases have been collected and tested on an ad-hoc basis as part of the epidemiological investigation of TB incidents. Information from such carcases is not representative of the incidence of TB in the badger population as a whole.
  293
  Both the Krebs report and the report from the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB recommended reintroducing the road traffic accident survey as part of a programme to establish the prevalence of TB among badgers. We are currently considering these recommendations.

  Vitamin and Mineral Supplements
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what outside interests have been declared by the members of the Ad Hoc Expert Advisory Group on Vitamins and Minerals.[80628]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 13 April 1999]The Declaration of Interests of members of the Export Group on Vitamins and Minerals has been published and copies have been deposited in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what decisions were taken at the meeting of the Ad Hoc Expert Advisory Group on Vitamin and Mineral Supplements on 21 January; and if the minutes of that meeting have been published. [80636]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 13 April 1999]A summary of the items discussed at the meeting of the Expert Group on Vitamins and Minerals on 21 January has been published and copies have been deposited in the Libraries of the House. The minutes of the meeting will be published once members of the Group have agreed them at their next meeting.

  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to review food safety legislation to give greater protection to the continued availability of vitamin, mineral, and herbal supplements and blends; and if his Department has had any discussions with the European Commission on such matters. [80624]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 13 April 1999]The Government have no plans to review the way in which Vitamin, mineral and herbal supplements and blends are regulated under food safety legislation. The Department responded in 1997 to a European Commission discussion paper on the harmonisation of controls on vitamin and mineral supplements and has been involved in discussions with the Commission on trade problems involving dietary supplements.

  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) when he expects the European Commission to publish the Draft Directive on Vitamin and Mineral Supplements; and what policy objectives he will be seeking to pursue when responding to that Draft when published; [80625]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the legislative position in other European Member States on the availability of vitamin and mineral supplements; and what steps he is taking in advance of the publication of the forthcoming Draft EU Directive on such supplements to encourage other Member State Governments to accept the principles which underpin his Department's polices in this area. [80626]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 13 April 1999]Controls on vitamin and mineral supplements vary from Member State to Member State. In most cases the rules relating to supplements sold under food law are more restrictive 294
  than those applying in the United Kingdom and typically limit the permitted level of vitamins and minerals in supplements to the Recommended Daily Amount or a multiple thereof. The EC Commission is considering the possibility of harmonising the controls on vitamin and mineral supplements sold under food law but is not yet committed to legislating in this area. We have made clear to the Commission and to other Member States our view that any new controls should be based on safety considerations.

  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the role and status of the Codex Alimentarius Commission; what progress has been made by that Commission in considering trade in dietary supplements; what his Department contributes to the discussions of that Commission; and what policy objectives are being pursued by his Department in that context. [80627]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 13 April 1999]The Codex Alimentarius Commission is an FAO/WHO—sponsored intergovernmental body charged with the development of food standards to protect the health of consumers and facilitate international trade. The Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses has been discussing the elaboration of guidelines for dietary supplements containing vitamins and minerals for a number of years. When the draft guidelines were last discussed in September 1998 the UK argued, as it has done in the past, that maximum limits on the vitamin and mineral content of supplements should only be based on safety considerations. A similar line was taken by a number of other participants. But because there was a general lack of consensus on this, and other aspects of the proposal, little progress was made. The draft guidelines will not now be discussed again until the year 2000.

  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what guidance he has given to the Ad Hoc Expert Group on Vitamins and Minerals on the conclusion of the Agriculture Committee's Fifth report of Session 1997–98 (HC 753) on Vitamin B6 that the Group should be asked to produce recommendations for a framework for deciding whether regulation of dietary supplements is necessary at all. [80623]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 13 April 1999]Members of the Expert Group on Vitamins and Minerals are aware of the conclusions and recommendations of the Agriculture Select Committee's report on Vitamin B6. They are also aware of the Government's response to the Select Committee's recommendation that the Group should be asked to produce recommendations for a framework for deciding whether regulation of dietary supplement is necessary at all. This states that:"The Government considers that [the Expert Group's] terms of reference do not place the Expert Group under any obligation to establish principles that would result in limits on the level of all vitamins and minerals in supplements sold under food law. It is for the Food Advisory Committee or, if it is established by the time the Group reports, the Food Standards Agency, to consider whether, in the light of the scientific evidence provided by the Expert Group, changes to the regulation of dietary supplements or their labelling should be recommended to Government".
  295
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the membership of the European Union's Scientific Committee for Food in relation to its work on the safety of vitamin and mineral supplements, indicating the scientific backgrounds and declared interests of members; and what are the Committee's terms of reference. [80638]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 13 April 1999]The Scientific Committee on Food (SCF) has allocated its work on the safety of vitamin and mineral supplements, to a Vitamins and Minerals Task Force. The Commission has not yet published a list of members of the Task Force or its terms of reference.

  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the roles of the(a) Food Advisory Committee and (b) Ad Hoc Expert Advisory Group on Vitamins and Minerals in considering the safety of vitamin and mineral supplements [80629]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 13 April 1999]I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) on 25 March 1999,Official Report, column 410.

  Farmers (Generic Drugs)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of(a) farmers' access to generic drugs for use with animals and (b) the current cost structure of dispensing drugs through veterinary surgeons. [79877]

  Mr. Rooker
  When no authorised veterinary medicinal product exists for a condition in a particular species and in order to avoid causing unacceptable suffering, veterinary surgeons exercising their clinical judgment may prescribe for one or a small number of animals under their care in accordance with the following sequence:

  (i) a veterinary medicine authorised for use in another species, or for a different use in the same species;

  (ii) a medicine authorised in the UK for human use;

  (iii) a medicine to be made up at the time on a one off basis by a veterinary surgeon or a properly authorised person.

  In addition, veterinarians treating food producing animals under the above arrangements may only use medicines whose pharmacologically active ingredients are contained in a product already authorised for use in a food-producing animal. The products used may include generic products.

  Decisions on the pricing of veterinary medicinal products are matters for the companies marketing them, taking account of commercial factors such as development and production costs and anticipated volume of sales. Similarly the cost of veterinary treatment is not governed by statutory rules but is a matter for negotiation between the veterinarian and client.

  Dairy Produce (New Zealand)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the current status of agreements with New Zealand regarding the supply of dairy produce. [79878]
  296
  Mr. Rooker
  Under the GATT Uruguay Round Agreement the EU can import certain quantities of butter and cheese from New Zealand at preferential rates of duty. The annual quotas and preferential rates are as follows:

  Quantity (tonnes)

  Rate of duty (euros per tonne)

  Butter

  76,667

  868.8

  Cheddar

  7,000

  170.6

  Cheese for processing

  4,000

  170.6

  Potatoes
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on how many occasions processed potato importers have been found to have imported Monsanto's New Leaf potatoes or products derived from them; what quantity of material containing Monsanto's New Leaf potatoes has entered the food chain; and if he will make a statement. [80104]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 13 April 1999]I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 23 March 1999,Official Report, column 217. I am not aware that any of these potatoes or their products have been imported into the UK. However, enforcement responsibility for imports of processed potatoes lies with local authorities.

  Farmers (Land Management)
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what funds under the Common Agricultural Policy will be available to assist farmers to manage land in environmentally sensitive ways. [79904]

  Mr. Morley
  Following the recent agreement in Berlin, funding under the Common Agricultural Policy for agri-environment schemes and all the other measures under the Rural Development Regulation will be roughly 4.3 beuro per annum for the whole Community. Subject to confirmation by the European Commission, this includes an addition of about 140 meuro for agri-environment schemes. No further breakdown is yet available.

  Fishing Vessels
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what sanctions are imposed by the Marine Safety Agency on fishing vessels which are found to have underdeclared their engine capacity. [80238]

  Mr. Morley
  The recording of fishing vessel's engine capacity is a requirement of the Merchant Shipping (Registration of Ships) Regulations 1993 which are the responsibility of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. New regulations, planned to come into force in September 1999, will enable the de-registration of a fishing vessel where its engine power does not match that registered. Checks on engine power are due to commence on 1 January 2000.

  Genetically Modified Foods
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to publish the paper requested by the Cabinet Sub-Committee on Biotechnology from the Chief Medical Officer and Chief Scientific Adviser on the human health implications of genetically modified foods. [75419]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  I have been asked to reply.
  298
  The Chief Medical Officer and the Chief Scientific Adviser have been asked to advise Ministers on the public health implications of the genetic modification of food. Their work will be conducted in accordance with the Government's Guidelines on "The Use of Scientific Advice in Policy Making", which sets out a framework for ensuring that Government policy is made on the basis of the best scientific advice. Advice from officials to Ministers is not normally published, but the possibility of publication in this case will be considered when the advice has been received.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Birmingham.

Cross-Channel Alcohol Smuggling
Lord Islwyn Lord Islwyn asked Her Majesty's Government:
What new measures they are taking to combat cross-Channel smuggling of alcohol.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, following the thorough alcohol and tobacco fraud review, the recommendations resulted in the Comprehensive Spending Review in July 1998 allocating Customs £35 million to tackle evasion of alcohol and tobacco duties. This has enabled it to employ more than 100 extra front-line staff, who have been operationally effective since 1st April.
Lord Islwyn: My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that whereas these measures may be worth while, nevertheless they tend to deal with the symptoms and not the cause of the problem? The real issue is the duty differential. For example, beer in France has 5p a pint excise duty compared to 33p a pint in Britain. Meanwhile, the Treasury is losing out because 15 per cent. of French beer sales is drunk in Britain. Organised crime is muscling in on this illicit trade and Kent police are having a job to cope with the situation. Surely fresh thought is needed on this important problem.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we should get the figures into perspective. Yes, of course it is true that it is a serious problem; I do not wish to underestimate it. The loss through cross-Channel smuggling of alcohol is put at £220 million, which is 2 per cent. of UK alcohol receipts. On the other hand, if we were to bring our alcohol duty levels down to those of France and our tobacco duties down to those of Belgium, we would be losing £9.5 billion in revenue. That is the balance which should be considered.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the Minister spoke about the new Customs and Excise officers being "operationally effective". Does he mean that they are working or does he mean that they have caught smugglers?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Both, my Lords. They have been recruited and in training since July of last year when the money was allocated. They are now all on duty—some were on duty well before 1st April—and they are all contributing to the work of Customs and Excise in combating smuggling.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, would the Minister care to comment on how much smuggling there might be of
762
tobacco and drink between France and Belgium? Perhaps I may suggest to him that if there were some harmonisation between rates of duty and taxes within the Community—up as well as down, bearing in mind what the Minister has just said—that might eliminate the problem.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend knows that the land frontier between France and Belgium is pretty well 100 per cent. open. I have no idea what degree of smuggling there is. I do not think anybody could possibly know such a figure.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, can the Minister confirm the recent announcement that 1.000 Customs and Excise jobs are to be cut in the south of England?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, I cannot, my Lords. I will investigate and write to the noble Earl.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that the higher the disparity between the taxes on alcohol and tobacco in this country and other countries, the more incentive there is for criminality? Does that not in itself worry the Government, because they are having to employ more officials to prevent this criminality from taking place and growing? Would it not be far better to have more reasonable taxes on these two items than continually to increase them above the cost of living and make things even more difficult as time goes on?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not surprised at the question. My noble friend is of course right; great disparities in excise duty rates result in smuggling. I have already given the difference between the cost to the Revenue of smuggling and the cost to the Revenue if we were to harmonise the rates fully. However, I am surprised that the question should come from him and that my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon, of all people, should be arguing for tax harmonisation within the European Union.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, my noble friend is quite wrong. I was not arguing for tax harmonisation; I was arguing for the Treasury and Parliament in this country to reduce the taxes on those particular items. That is not harmonisation.
Lord Islwyn: My Lords, will the Minister recognise that young people can obtain supplies of alcohol more easily from illicit dealers, whereas with off-licences at least there is a measure of control? Will he also recognise that the licensing trade employs many thousands of people throughout the country and that eventually these smuggling activities will have a knock-on effect on jobs?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not know that I can confirm that this is likely to increase sales of alcohol to children. Unfortunately, a great deal of smuggled alcohol and tobacco goes through legitimate or semi-legitimate retail outlets. As to job

763
losses, it should be borne in mind that a large proportion of the alcohol smuggled into this country is manufactured in this country, sent out to hypermarkets in Calais and Boulogne and then brought back again. So there are job losses in the retail trade but not in the brewing industry.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, in view of what the Minister has just said, would he care to comment on the losses suffered by Kentish pubs and breweries?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hoped that I had answered that question. Yes, of course the loss to Kentish pubs is very serious. That is why we are putting the extra effort into anti-smuggling activity. But the loss to breweries is probably not that great as it is British beer that is being brought back into the country.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that there is another differential to consider; namely, the difference between the strength of export spirits and that of spirits obtained on the home market? Is not the lure to smuggle the ability to be able to buy export strength spirits, for example gin and whisky, at 47 per cent. by volume, as opposed to spirits sold in the domestic markets at 40 per cent. by volume? Does the noble Lord therefore consider that there is good reason to harmonise the rates of alcohol content in order to avoid and reduce smuggling?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, harmonising rates of alcohol strength would be a step that would take us far in the direction of a "united states of Europe" in which this Government do not wish to go. I do not know that extra high-strength spirits form a significant proportion of the goods brought back into this country. A significant proportion of the beer that is brought back into this country is high-strength. It has no market in other European countries; it is manufactured in this country, sent over to Calais and Boulogne and then returned here.

European Single Currency
2.45 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will issue a White Paper setting out the political and economic reasons for and against the United Kingdom joining the European single currency and identifying the questions which need to be answered before a decision is reached.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government have already spelt out clearly their policy on membership of the single currency. The key factor underpinning any government decision will be whether the economic benefits to the United Kingdom are clear and unambiguous. If they are, the Government believe that there is no constitutional bar to British membership.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would be good enough to read the
764
Question on the Order Paper and then attempt to answer it. So far, he has not done so. Does he remember the way in which my right honourable friend the recent Prime Minister was drenched in ridicule for not having forecast, years ahead, the attitude of the Government to the single currency? Now that the single currency is in existence, the Government ought to be capable of setting out in a White Paper the reasons, both economic and political, in favour of and against our joining it. So far, they have failed miserably.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I reject that accusation. As I said in my Answer, the Government have already clearly spelt out their policy. In doing so, they have spelt out the economic factors and the political considerations. The Chancellor did so in his Statement in October 1997, as did the Prime Minister when he spoke on the subject earlier this year.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that at some time in the not too far distant future the people of our country are to be invited to make a decision of the utmost importance? Would it not therefore be in the public interest for the Government to cause to be published the quantified factors in the economic sphere that have enabled them to arrive at their decision? Surely the decision of the people, when it is made, ought to be an informed decision. In the interests of transparency, as well as the future of our country, will the Government reconsider the whole matter of providing proper information?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend is right to remind the House that the Government have undertaken that when they have formed the view that it is appropriate to do so a decision will be taken on entry into the single currency. That decision will be taken first by the Government, then by Parliament, then by the people in a referendum. My noble friend is right to say that it must be a fully informed decision—and it will be.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, the Minister said that the Government will be guided by the economic advantages of entering or not entering the single currency. Is he referring to the short term or the long term, or both? Do the political advantages come into the equation at all?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, of course the economic advantages must be the long-term economic advantages. There will be short-term advantages too, but those are not the primary considerations that we should have in mind for such a crucially important step.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the performance of the euro since its launch has certainly not as yet produced anything on which to base a long-term definitive view? Will he, however, confess to any marginal disappointment with its performance in terms of both its stability and its strength against the

765
dollar? Does that lead the Minister to assume any potential dangers in UK entry to EMU? If so, what are they?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I agree with the first part of the noble Lord's question. He is right to say that it would be quite wrong to draw conclusions about the stability of the euro and its success or otherwise over a period of scarcely more than three months. That leads me to disagree with the second part of his question.
Lord Renton: My Lords, bearing in mind that the Government have a duty to protect the economic interests of this country, can the noble Lord say how the Government can perform that duty if they lose their ability to control the value of our currency?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord is looking a good way ahead. If we joined the European single currency, we should be participating in a larger and more widely held currency and presumably, therefore, in many ways a stronger currency. I think that the noble Lord is oversimplifying this when he says that we should lose control.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that the political consequences of entering the euro zone are at least as important as the economic consequences? Does he not agree that the Government owe it to the electorate to spell out in detail the political costs and benefits of joining?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have already said in earlier answers that the economic benefits are the most important consideration. They have to be clear and unambiguous. Subject to that, there is no constitutional bar to British membership. But the noble Viscount is right that the constitutional and political considerations are of great importance. Before any decision is taken, the Government will spell out all these issues. We want a genuine choice. A White Paper of the kind asked for by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, is appropriate only when a decision one way or the other is imminent. At any other time, it would not be a genuine and realistic choice.
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that the decision of the European Central Bank to reduce its interest rates by half a percentage point shows that it is not hell-bent on deflation, as so many Eurosceptics would have us believe, and that it takes very seriously the issue of growth? Is he prepared to give us an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will press in the Council for a speeding up of the reform of labour markets (which is necessary in many countries of Europe) so that there is a better assurance that there will be the kind of growth which is attractive to us in the longer term?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not think that it would be appropriate for Her Majesty's Government to comment on the decisions of the
766
European Central Bank on interest rates in recent weeks. As my noble friend knows, when the European Central Bank was set up, under the British presidency, we argued for greater transparency in its workings, but that does not mean that we take a view on its current decisions.

Piracy and Robbery at Sea
2.55 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis asked Her Majesty's Government
What success they have had in increasing diplomatic pressure on countries that provide safe havens for suspected pirates or armed robbers at sea.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State., Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, we urge all states to take action to counter the menace of piracy and armed robbery at sea and bring the perpetrators to justice. Last year we supported action by the United. Nations General Assembly and the International Maritime Organisation; with EU colleagues we raised the matter at the Regional Forum of the Association of South East Asian Nations; and in countries where attacks affected British shipping we took bilateral action with the states concerned. International pressure is having an effect, but piracy remains a grave threat to crews, security of navigation and international trade.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that most helpful Answer, which shows that the Government are giving the matter high priority. Is she aware that there were no fewer than 467 incidents of violence to seafarers last year alone, resulting in 67 deaths and involving at least six British registered, British crewed or British flagged vessels? Is it not unfortunate that, in the light of this serious situation, our own shipowners have so far declined to allow for increased crewing in vulnerable areas of this kind in order to permit proper watch-keeping, and have also declined to introduce closed circuit television, which might well help to mitigate this tremendously difficult problem?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, it is because the Government are aware of the statistics which my noble friend details to the House that we took the action last year which I described. This year we shall have to follow up that action in the United Nations. The recently issued M notice, which was a matter of consultation with both the seafarers' union, NUMAST, and the Chamber of Shipping, makes clear in paragraph 11 that:
"Shipowners should ensure that security watches are enhanced if their vessel is in waters or at anchor off ports where attacks occur".

767
I believe that the advice to shipowners is very clear indeed. On other issues that are covered, a number of specific points of advice are given. It is also made clear that a constant radio watch should be maintained with shore or naval authorities in areas of danger.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, as a birthday present to the noble Baroness, perhaps I may ask her a simple and helpful question, to which I am sure I shall receive a characteristically clear and unequivocal reply. Will the Government undertake to study carefully the co-operation between Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore, which together have succeeded in reducing the attacks in one of the world's worst affected areas, the Malacca Straits, from 32 in 1991 to none in 1997 as a result of co-ordinated patrols which it was agreed should begin there in 1992? When they have studied that excellent co-operation, will they encourage other high-risk areas to emulate it?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, that was a very nice birthday present, although perhaps not quite as nice as some of the other presents I have received today. It happens to be a question on which I have been briefed.
The Government believe that regional co-operation is the most effective way to tackle the problem. We have encouraged this through European Union participation in the ASEAN Regional Forum. Co-operation between regional states is, in the view of the Government, an enormously important part of dealing with this difficulty.
Difficulties in co-ordination mean that attacks are sometimes not investigated and that criminals go free. The example which the noble Lord cites of the Malacca Straits is indeed one which the Government would like to see emulated in other parts of the world.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, perhaps we may add our congratulations, though perhaps in less elegant terms, to the noble Baroness. Can she say whether consideration has been given by Interpol to the use of alarm systems to enable a more precise identification of those ships which have been attacked and of the location of pirate groups which attack ships, particularly in the Malacca Straits but also elsewhere?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her good wishes. A number of issues have been tackled in the International Maritime Organisation discussions. As I indicated a moment ago, the Government are encouraging regional co-operation. The noble Baronesses raises a specific point about Interpol, on which I shall have to write to her. The Government, through the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, last year sent out some 17,000 copies of the advice to seafarers in this country which goes into great detail on ways in which seafarers and shipowners can prepare for attacks which
768
may be made on them. I advise all seafarers and shipowners to look carefully at the M notice which was issued.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, what are the Government doing to assist the International Maritime Organisation in its activities? What success has the Metropolitan Police had in previous missions to target countries?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we helped to finance the ongoing series of missions and seminars of the International Maritime Organisation for the affected regions. These focused on the need for some states to put in place effective plans to investigate the attacks which occur and to prosecute those involved. In addition, we have funded the participation of two international crime experts from Scotland Yard who have been able to give practical advice and who are helping to develop piracy response plans in parts of the world most severely affected by these difficulties.

Hotels and Guest-houses: Grading Scheme
2.59 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government
What priority they intend to give to introducing a new grading scheme for all hotels and guest-houses as proposed in the policy document Tomorrow's Tourism.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, raising the quality of all serviced accommodation in England is a high priority, as Tomorrow's Tourism made clear. Inspections by the English Tourist Board, the AA and the RAC under the new harmonised accommodation rating schemes began in January 1998. When the schemes are launched to consumers in September of this year we think that they will welcome the greater emphasis on quality and find the combined rating of facilities and quality much easier to understand.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend for that helpful reply, I declare an interest as vice-president of the Northumbria Tourist Board and vice-chairman of the All-Party Tourism Group. Can my noble friend tell the House what is being done to define the standards to which he referred? For example, what consultations are being held on the proposed standards? Will the scheme be a statutory one? Further, does my noble friend agree that such a scheme is long overdue and that all other tourist countries have had such a scheme in operation for a long time?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the standards themselves are enormously complicated. Although I shall not read them out, there are 51 pages of standards for hotels and a further 26 pages of quality standards for guest-houses. These have been agreed after detailed consultation and are being used by the

769
inspectors of the English Tourist Board, the AA and the RAC. There is no present intention to make it a statutory scheme but we would not rule that out if it became necessary. However, the reception of the inspection process that has been going on for more than a year has been very good indeed. I agree with my noble friend's last point that this is long overdue.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is unfortunate that there is not a single harmonised scheme operated by all the tourist boards across the United Kingdom? Does he agree that that would be very advantageous to the industry as a whole, bearing in mind that the divisions between the home countries are not easily recognised by those beyond our shores?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I agree entirely with the noble Lord. We would have wished to reach agreement with the tourist boards of all three countries. However, the harmonised scheme that is available in England through the AA, RAC and the English Tourist Board is available in Scotland, Wales, the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and Northern Ireland under the auspices of the AA and the RAC. Therefore, although it may not be as simple as it should be tourists can have access to the same standards everywhere.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that a very successful grading scheme has been operated in France for many years and it is probably easier to understand than all of the various descriptions promised by the Government?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend. I am a great devotee of the nomenclature nationale. It is a little regimental and requires registration by the prefect of the particular department, and classification is integrated with registration. It is a bit conformist, if I may put it in that way.
Lord Naseby: My Lords, is the Minister aware that Tomorrow's Tourism contains a number of other recommendations, not least the one about lay-bys for tourists going to and from these registered hotels and guest-houses? Can that also be given some priority?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord tempts me into a lay-by that is quite a way from the original Question, which is concerned with the classification of tourist accommodation. Clearly, all of the proposals in Tomorrow's Tourism are being pursued very actively not just by the Government but by the tourist trade itself.
Baroness David: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that in his effort to harmonise these matters everything will be exactly the same? When one wanders round the capitals of Europe, or further afield, it is depressing to find that many hotels are exactly the same and have no character of their own.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall gladly lend my noble friend the details of the standard
770
classifications. I do not believe that in all cases they require identical provision but comparable provision, and that is what tourists want.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: My Lords, on more than one occasion today the noble Lord has made reference to the English Tourist Board, which will be monitoring the new system. The noble Lord gives me some encouragement. Does the noble Lord mean by his statements on the English Tourist Board that the Government have gone back on their decision in Tomorrow's Tourism to rename our national tourist board? Can he reassure the House that "England" or "English" will remain in the title?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I was referring to the English Tourist Board as having been responsible historically for the harmonised scheme. The report on the implementation of the scheme to establish a new national body for tourism in England has been produced after very considerable consultation. That is now with Ministers. We hope to make their conclusions public very shortly. I confirm that the recommended name for the new body includes "England".
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that education and training are crucially important if standards in the tourism industry are to be raised? What encouragement are the Government giving to education and training in the industry?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we are giving huge encouragement, A major section of Tomorrow's Tourism is concerned with education and training. It is our view that the tourism industry in this country can be helped only if we treat it as a serious and responsible profession. To that extent both the skills training proposals and the introduction of the minimum wage are essential.

Pollution Prevention and Control Bill [H.L.]
3.6 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Whitty, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Bill has been re-committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clause 1,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 2 and 3,

Schedules 2 and 3,

Clause 4.—(Lord Carter.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Taxation and Public Expenditure
3.7 p.m.
Lord Skidelsky Lord Skidelsky rose to call attention to current levels of taxation and public expenditure and their consequences; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these debates on Wednesday afternoon are a bit of a luxury, especially for busy people. They are not directly connected with legislation, but they give the House the opportunity to consider broad questions of policy in a relatively non-contentious way. I very much hope that this Wednesday slot will survive the reforms of our House, whatever shape they take. The debate this afternoon is really our substitute for a Budget debate. Therefore, I should like to thank in advance those noble Lords who have agreed to take part.
Economic writers have always known that excessive government spending can undermine an economy. Government revenues are derived from taxes and borrowing. If rising taxation destroys the incentives and finances of producers, the economy declines. We have also always known that there comes a point, difficult though it is to define, when tax evasion, tax avoidance, smuggling and other economic crimes become endemic and cause government revenues to collapse. In other words, the truths underlying the famous (or infamous) Laffer curve have been known for centuries. I give the following quotation:
"Attacks on people's property remove the incentive to acquire and gain property… When the incentive to acquire and obtain property is gone, people no longer make efforts to acquire any. When attacks on property are extensive and general… business inactivity, too, becomes general… People scatter everywhere… to places outside the jurisdiction of their present government… The population of a region becomes light. The settlements there become empty. The cities lie in ruins".
Those words were written by the Arab scholar Ibn Khaldun in 1377 and have been repeated by most economists over the ensuing centuries. They are particularly apposite to the subject of the proposition before us today.
Taxation is driven by public spending. This century public spending has risen dramatically as a share of national income in all developed countries. To take just our own country, in 1900 the British Government spent 10 per cent. of national income, roughly the level it had been since the Napoleonic Wars, out of which they also repaid a large part of the national debt incurred during those wars. By 1976, the share had risen from 10 per cent. to 50 per cent.
I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to two features of that record which seem of particular interest. First, our most successful period of post-war growth from the late 1940s to the early 1960s coincided with a downward trend of public spending in national income, from 35 per cent. in 1948 to 28 per cent. in 1960. Secondly, we reversed the upward ratchet which started in the early 1960s, earlier than most European countries. Our public spending share peaked at 50 per cent. in 1976 and has fallen fairly steadily ever since—despite the blip in the early 1990s—down to under 40 per cent. today. The European Union share, by contrast, went on
772
rising through the 1980s and has only recently stabilised at a much higher level than our own—at about 50 per cent. of national income.
For much of this second period, the UK growth rate has been higher than that of our European partners. They have stagnated; we have discovered a fresh dynamism. Of course there have been other factors in that turnaround, including the supply side reforms of the 1980s. But the main conclusion I draw is that, within fairly wide limits, it is not so much the level of taxation which influences economic performance as the expectation people have of what the tax burden will be—in other words, the expected trend of taxes. If they expect the burden to go up, their efforts will slacken; if they expect it to go down their efforts will quicken.
That is very relevant to the present situation. Between 1981 and 1997 the tax burden fell from 39 per cent. to 36 per cent. of GDP. Since 1997 it has started to creep up again as a result of what we call stealth taxes—excise duties, tobacco tax escalators, windfall taxes, reductions of allowances, and so on. It is projected to go up to 37 per cent. by the year 2001—a very small amount, I concede, but one which could have large effects if that is expected to set a trend of rising taxation.
That is the first point to which I wish to draw attention. It is not just the level of taxes which determines economic performance, but the expectation of whether taxes will go up or down.
My second point is the close connection between the level of taxation and fiscal rules. The reason is that a budget which is balanced to any large extent by borrowing leads to debt accumulation which has to be financed by higher taxes. If one has no budget rules but simply allows borrowing to plug any shortfall of normal taxes, one gets into an unsustainable debt situation which means one then has to raise taxes. So there is a quite close connection between the level and trend of taxation and budget rules. A balanced budget in the normal sense was achieved only once in our country between 1945 and 1988—from 1968–70 when the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, was Chancellor. I am glad to pay tribute to him for that achievement.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord should pay tribute to the member of his Treasury team who is present with us today.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, I am very glad to add the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, to my tribute. That surplus was achieved only once. However, the budget deficits in the period of the 1950s and 1960s were very moderate—only about 2 to 3 per cent. of national income. As a result of the mass privatisations of the 1980s, the rationale for large scale borrowing for capital spending has largely disappeared. Too often that capital borrowing was simply a euphemism for subsidies. But what do we find now? There are one or two disturbing straws in the wind. Should the Government have put £200 million of the taxpayers' money into the plant at Longbridge, into a private car manufacturer? Is this the first small sign of the revival of the subsidy culture which we thought we had left behind us? I shall be interested to know.

773
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has proclaimed his allegiance to the golden rule: the doctrine that government borrowing should not exceed government investment. Some rule is certainly better than no rule, but I have to point out that this rule is full of holes. Let me explain. The success of an investment in the private sector is measured by the rate of return. So for the capital/current distinction to be useful in the public sector, shadow returns must be calculated for all types of capital spending. Is it really meaningful to identify a shadow return for capital spending to build a prison or school? Is it clear that the return is higher than current spending on an extra prison officer or teacher? Unless an identifiable income stream results from the spending, the analogy between public sector and private sector borrowing breaks down. So we must monitor the golden rule of our prudent Chancellor with great care to make sure it does not become a cover for all kinds of forbidden tricks.
Another aspect of fiscal practice which gives rise to concern is the habit of all governments—I do not exclude Conservative governments—of raising taxes to satisfy populist spending pressures and then reducing the effect of those on the tax burden, especially for the middle classes, through tax reliefs and allowances. The danger is that the abolition or reduction of those allowances, justified though it may be on grounds of simplicity, equity and so on, allows the Chancellor to increase the tax burden without raising tax rates. That has started, and we need to watch it carefully.
I wish to turn in my conclusion from these rather dry technical matters to issues of basic philosophy. The difference between our party and the party on the Benches opposite is—I put as neutrally as I can—that we instinctively favour lower taxes for the sake of freedom and efficiency while it instinctively favours higher public spending for the sake of (let me call it) social justice. Our contention is that lower taxes, by making the economy more productive, will at the same time improve the position of the least well off, especially if the tax-cutting programme pays attention to raising tax thresholds as well as cutting standard and higher rates.
Across the board tax cuts benefit everyone. In particular they get us away from that dreadful and divisive game of counting winners and losers. We need to point out that a tax cut of 3 per cent. increases teachers' pay just as much as a pay rise of 3 per cent., and leaves the community more contented because it is across the board.
So in arguing for this route to social and economic improvement, we draw not only on the logic of Ibn Khaldun and his successors with whom I began, but on the historical experience of all successful societies, including our own. I beg to move for Papers.
3.20 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, draws our attention to current levels of taxation and public expenditure. I am not an economist and personally I find the argument over the numbers rather pointless. The noble Lord spoke about
774
expectation, but, after all, the numbers are a matter of record. Taxes are laid out in the Budget Red Book. The same applies to the categorisation of the Government's income and expenditure.
The noble Lord spoke about the expected return on government expenditure on supporting industry. I must point out to him that traditional accounting takes no account of social benefits. Often the expenditure is precisely for that purpose. Categorisation depends on how you view the world. The Treasury has one view of the tax burden and official statisticians have another. Every economist will have his own view about, for instance, whether the working families' tax credit should be accounted for as public spending or as negative taxation. Frankly, I find the argument academic.
The noble Lord spoke about the percentage of GDP taken in taxation. Surely, the significant point is that the level of taxation depends on the rise or fall of economic activity. And so the argument over whether the percentage of GDP taken by the Government is 37 per cent. or 36 per cent. depends on the domestic product. That is what is important.
However, the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, calls our attention to the consequences of the current levels of taxation and public expenditure. Now this is much more interesting territory. I would hope that the consequence of our level of taxation and public expenditure is a thriving and competitive economy and a fair and decent society. That is the kind of country I want to live in. Indeed, I congratulate the Government on having stated that as their objective.
Let me take a look at some of the areas of our taxation and public spending to see whether they are directed towards achieving those purposes. Let us take business. Business taxes are complex and there are lots of them. A thriving and competitive economy is not created just by reducing taxes to encourage consumption. Businesses should be taxed in such a way that they are encouraged to invest, to be enterprising, competitive and innovative. We particularly want to encourage small and medium-sized enterprises. A low level of corporation tax does precisely that. Introducing a new 10 per cent. rate for the smallest companies and 20 per cent. for the other SMEs certainly encourages enterprise and productivity.
In spite of what the noble Lord says, businessmen.. especially those operating smaller businesses, are encouraged by tax allowances. And the Government are slowly doing that by introducing a new tax credit on research and development for SMEs from next year by extending the 40 per cent. first year capital allowance for SMEs and by the proposal for all employee share ownership schemes.
Small businesses will also receive some additional benefit, assistance and encouragement from their taxes from the new Small Business Service and its enterprise fund providing loan guarantees. Tax allowances will also be available to encourage the wider use of computers. So there is plenty of opportunity for firms to reduce their tax base by being enterprising and competitive. The whole point of allowances is that firms are enabled to reduce their tax base.

775
However, businessmen, large and small, are also much influenced by what they receive in return for their taxes. If they see a bloated and wasteful public sector, a disastrous roller-coaster economy, a poorly educated workforce and highly fragmented and unequal consumers, they will be unhappy with any level of taxation. Where they see that government finances are under control, that the economy is steady, that the public sector is fairly stable and that the quality of the workforce is improving, they are encouraged by the resulting low inflation and low interest rates and feel that they are getting reasonable value for their taxes. That is one response to the noble Lord's point about expectations. He appears to believe that what is happening is a consequence of the current level of taxation and public spending. I do not believe that it is.
Personal taxation, like business tax, is complex. Much depends on the individual's tax base, his allowances, and, most importantly, their relationship with the benefit system. For years, the tax and benefit systems have been out of step. This created the unemployment trap and the poverty trap which proved not only a disincentive to work but also resulted in more and more children living in poverty.
Since 1979, the wealth of the nation has steadily increased, but so has the number of children living in poverty. That has been largely due to the taxation system. Poor people were paying marginal rates of tax of 70 per cent. Thankfully, the Government have at last begun the integration of the tax and benefit systems in order to spring the dependency trap. Surely, one of the better consequences of the working families' tax credit is the gradual elimination of the poverty and unemployment traps. It must contribute to a fairer society if work pays better than benefits.
Reform of national insurance charges will also increase the work incentive for lower paid people. It makes sense to align national insurance charges with income tax personal allowances. It also makes sense to reduce national insurance for low paid people and to increase it for higher paid people by charging national insurance against benefits in kind and increasing the rate for higher paid self employed people.
It must also be right for our society and for the economy to help families and children. The new children's tax credit and the working families' tax credit do precisely that; the tax allowance on mortgages does not. Pensioners, too, will be guaranteed a minimum income and child benefit will rise to record levels. All those changes must contribute towards a fairer society and help to close the gaps in society. Surely, that is a welcome result of the level of taxation and public spending.
Turning to the environment, I believe that it is quite legitimate for the Government to reduce the tax burden on good things such as payment for work and enterprise and to put the burden on bad things such as pollution. Climate change is recognised by all as a significant environmental threat. Using the tax system to encourage the efficient use of energy and the introduction of renewable sources of energy can only be right.
776
I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, for introducing the debate. I confess that I am a little disappointed by what he had to say. It was as though he was reading from an old script. Indeed, he went back to the 14th century and requoted the old mantras. The world has moved on and so has thinking about taxation. I believe that I have shown that the Government are aware of that, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, will not be left behind.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Hogg: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Skidelsky on the wording of the Motion, because it is particularly well chosen. It is indeed important to
"call attention to … levels of taxation and … expenditure",
because they are so deeply buried in the Government's lovely new shiny publications.
My text today is, of course, the monumental, wrist-straining document in which the Chancellor presented his latest Budget. I took the trouble recently to compare this remarkable production, written and edited at the taxpayers' expense, with the equivalent document issued on the 1979 Budget. Those of your Lordships who recall the radical changes made in that once-in-a-generation Budget may also recall that the Treasury managed to describe it simply and straightforwardly in a little red Budget book just 31 pages long.
To describe his latest Budget, however, the Chancellor seems to have needed 190 full pages—A4 size. There can surely be only one of two explanations. One is that his tinkering has so massively over-complicated the tax system that it really does require over 50,000 words to explain what on earth he is trying to do. The alternative is that in every sense of the word this really is a bit thick—that rather a lot of this so-called Budget book consists of a load of wool that the Chancellor wishes to spin over our eyes.
I would like to be both optimistic and charitable and assume that the second explanation is the correct one, because, after all, a waste of paper and Civil Service time would be much less damaging to the economy than making a complicated mess of the taxation system.
I am afraid, however, that there are aspects of Mr. Brown's Budget that plainly are a bit of a muddle, of which the most obvious is his plan for married couples' taxation. At a stroke, he has reneged on the hard-won principle of separate taxation for women, by proposing to make a mother's tax bill dependent on what her husband is earning. The only silver lining is that, since this is one of the many Budget announcements that the Chancellor does not actually intend to do anything about for two years, the Treasury has some time to sort him out.
One will certainly look in vain for a full explanation of such an important policy change in the Budget book. It is not that which is filling up the pages. In Chapter 5, after two sketchy sentences, we are promised "further detail" later in the book—presumably in the hope that

777
we will simply lose interest, because if one turns to the place where it is promised, it just is not there. So what are we being offered in this massive tome?
After wading through the first 94 pages of this document, I finally reached the heading "Financial Statement and Budget Report". Now, that is what it used to say on page 1! What that tells me is rather serious: that the 94 pages in advance are the spin-doctors' preserve, and that the only part of this document to which the Treasury is prepared to give this traditional imprimatur is buried at the back of the book.
And, of course, the Chancellor must be hoping nobody gets quite that far. For example, on page 14 we are told that taxes are being cut this year by £1 billion. It is not until page 120 that we discover that the Chancellor is meanwhile putting taxes up this year by nearly £4 billion. He highlights the cut in the starting rate of income tax on pages 9, 11, 13, 49, 59, 60, 71 and 72—and I am sure that I have missed plenty—but he does not identify until page 97 the fact that he has meanwhile paid for most of this by raising the 20p rate.
This document is riddled with the repetition of claims that are not clearly defined, illustrated by somewhat randomly associated figures, laced together with buzz words. On page 70 there is a dinky little chart purporting to show what will happen to families' living standards, which ignores everything to do with spending taxes, and is only a guess at the position in 2001 anyway. Yet the Government somehow seem to have failed to find space on any of these 190 pages for the traditional tables showing the overall impact of all tax changes on individuals this year.
I have to say that I think it is fortunate that the Treasury is not a private pension provider, because I do not think this would meet the regulator's CAT standards.
I have done time in Whitehall. I have taken my turn at brisking up boring old Treasury announcements. So I am not inclined to be too prissy about presentation. But this is not some trivial hand-out on a Minister's speech. The annual Budget report is an important document of record. It circulates widely. There is a serious public interest in ensuring that the Budget report is balanced, clear and straightforward, factual and unbiased—and, preferably, brief and to the point. Whitehall guidance, admirably re-issued by this Government, is that all such material
"should be objective and explanatory, not tendentious or polemical".
All I can say is that someone seems to have nodded off at times between pages 1 and 94. For my part, having read them too, I cannot say that I altogether blame them.
Fortunately, the Chancellor has been rumbled. To quote the Economist:
"New Labour has raised the art of obfuscating and spinning official information and statistics to new heights. Or should that be lows?".
I think he was rumbled partly because of a rather puzzling attempt by some to deny the basic fact that taxation is going up. This led the Institute for Fiscal Studies—on whose Council I have the honour to sit—to dig a bit deeper, and examine the extent to which, in the Economist's words, the numbers have been
778
"flattered by reclassification'". If one gets far enough into the good bit of the Budget book one can, however, find the answer to the tax question. This shows clearly that current Government receipts will go up by over £10 billion this year, and, just to make the point, that these receipts are planned to increase—only modestly, but steadily—as a share of national income. One may have to get to page 154 to find a comprehensive, undistorted answer, but it is there. The Government are planning to raise taxes this year, next year and the year after. I am sure no one in this House would be so misleading, or should I say "misled", as to suggest otherwise.
3.37 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, perhaps I may join others in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, for raising this interesting topic and giving us the opportunity to debate it.
I should like to respond immediately to three of the points that the noble Lord made. The first was that the degree of taxation in society has a considerable effect on incentives. That is only partially true. An enormous amount of work has been done by economists over the years to try to identify how big an incentive effect taxation has. I think the conclusions are that very high rates of taxation create a considerable disincentive effect.
Let us look at times when we have had very high rates of taxation, such as during the Labour administration of the 1974–79 era, and at the compounding of means testing and the poverty trap, a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel. This is an issue that we should be very much aware of—that the marginal rates of taxation faced by those at the bottom of the income scale, not at the top, are frequently well over 100 per cent. and have probably provided a major disincentive to working.
Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, raised the issue of investment. Since some time in the 1960s the Government have made no distinction between capital and current expenditure in their accounts. I happened to be working in the Treasury in the early 1960s when we made that distinction. One result of the change is that the capital side of public accounts, of expenditure, has over the course of time been neglected, because current expenditure is always more pressing. There are always incomes to be met, salaries to be paid. Therefore, time and time again when economies have to be made they have been made from the capital side of expenditure. The result, I believe, is that this state has neglected its responsibilities over the years; it has run down the social infrastructure to a point where we are in danger of not being able to meet essential needs.
I give as an example the area in which I work. the economics of basic science, where we are in danger of not being able to meet the needs of modern industrialisation, of new technologies, because in this country we are not putting enough money into research and development.
The third point that the noble Lord made is that, provided we cut taxes and growth increases, we do not have to worry about the poor because they will benefit

779
from faster growth. There is a degree to which the noble Lord is obviously right. He pointed out correctly that in the period from 1950 to the end of the 1960s, when we had the fastest growth rate in this country which we have ever experienced consistently, the poor did very well. But that was also a period in which we introduced major redistributive schemes for the poor.
There is no evidence at all that in the period of the 1980s, at a time when taxation was cut substantially, there was any benefit to the poor. On the contrary, we have seen the distinction between the rich and poor becoming wider than ever before. The trickle-down effect did not work. That is why we are left with a considerable problem in relation to the poor and the issue of poverty.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, I thank the noble
Baroness for giving way. Perhaps she will recall that in my speech I said that as part of any tax-cutting programme tax thresholds should be raised. That was my preferred method for tackling the poverty programme. It is not the only way but it is my preferred method of arranging the tax system.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Lord made that point because it is a point which the Liberal Democrats have been making for a long time.
From these Benches, there is a different proposition which I wish to put to the House. The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, suggested that taxation is increasing and should be diminished. As is well known, we believe the opposite; that on the contrary, in certain areas, public expenditure should increase more quickly and that there is considerable justification for raising taxation to meet that increase in public expenditure.
The reason for putting forward that argument is that taxation can be divided into three main areas. One can be justified in terms of public goods. A traditional public good is something like street lighting. You cannot prevent people from benefiting from street lighting. If you ask people whether they will pay for street lighting, they will say that they will not because they know that if muggins next door will pay, there is no reason why they should pay anything towards it. It is called the free-rider problem, and the easiest way out of that dilemma is for the state to raise general taxation to pay for it. Many areas—public lighting, the environment, safety, health, defence, prisons and so on—can be justified on the ground of being public goods.
Secondly, there is redistribution and the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, spoke at considerable length about that. Traditionally, it has been a highly political issue which has divided right from left. I am not sure that that is so any longer. Something like 30 per cent. of UK public expenditure—£100 billion per year—now goes on the social security budget, which is the redistribution budget. All sides struggle to keep it down. It is led largely by issues of old age, illness and unemployment. As the debate that took place here on Monday showed very clearly, it is an area which is extremely difficult to control.
780
The final area of major public expenditure in this country is interesting: it is health and education expenditure. It amounts to about 25 per cent. of public expenditure. In this country we are spending 5.7 of GDP on health and 5 per cent. of GDP on education. We are spending less on health than any other advanced industrialised country. The United States in total spends 12.5 per cent. on health, but even the public sector in the United States, which provides a minimal health service, spends 6.5 per cent.
As regards education, we are spending about the same, on average, as our European partners and the United States. Nevertheless, in terms of education, as we know, one in four in this country is now functionally illiterate.
We are now a globalised economy. Capital is extremely mobile; technology is mobile. A multinational can set up business where it wants to. We cannot compete in this country in terms of low wages. We must compete not in terms of brawn but in terms of brain. We shall create jobs in this country only if we can attract those multinationals and provide them with the labour which is capable of meeting their modern-day technological requirements. Unless we invest in education, we shall not be capable of doing that. That is why, on these Benches, year after year, we have said that there must be more investment in education. It is an investment that we cannot afford not to make.
I know that those on the Government Front Bench will tell me that they have put more money into education. But it is a paltry amount compared with what is required. It is by no means enough to meet the needs of a modern industrialised country when there is currently such a crisis.
It may be argued, too, that we do not need to put in more money; that we can create efficiency savings, which we have been doing in the education and health sectors for a considerable period of time. The problem is that 80 per cent. of the budgets in those sectors are people budgets. Why do people spend money on private education? It is because they want smaller classes. We cannot have smaller classes in our primary schools nor proper nursery education unless we are prepared to spend money on those issues.
We are not a highly taxed country. By OECD comparisons, 36 per cent. of the GDP in the UK goes on tax. In the United States and Japan it is about 29 per cent.; in Germany it is at 38 per cent.; in France it is at 45 per cent.; and in Scandinavia it is over 50 per cent. In European terms we are towards the bottom of the league tables. In world terms we are at the lower end of the middle of the league tables. We are a rich country.
We must bear in mind the importance of an increase in expenditure on education and the aspirations of our people in relation to health. We cannot meet the aspirations for a better quality health service unless we are prepared to spend money and put more people into the service. We cannot meet those aspirations unless we increase public expenditure in those two areas.
Unless there are other areas of public expenditure which can provide for the increase necessary in those two areas, we must increase taxation. We cannot afford

781
not to invest in education. We must put more money into the National Health Service in order to meet the aspirations of the voters in this country. In both those spheres, we are justified in increasing taxation.
3.38 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I shall not endorse the interesting speech which we have just heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. However, I shall comment on personal tax levels in this country.
We owe a debt of gratitude to my noble friend Lord Skidelsky for giving us the opportunity to have this debate. I was particularly struck when he referred to the changes in personal taxation as having been one of the major features of the period of Conservative rule. Indeed, there was a revolution in direct taxation under three remarkable Chancellors—one of whom is in the Chamber this afternoon, the other two being my noble and learned friend Lord Howe and my noble friend Lord Lawson—from the time that the government of my noble friend Lady Thatcher were elected. At that time noble Lords will remember that we had a top personal rate of taxation of 98 per cent. It had not fallen below 90 per cent. for some 20 years. Very able people were leaving this country in large numbers in order to avoid the consequences of that tax regime.
I want to talk a little about our present direct tax regime. Before I do so I should like to pay two tributes. First, I should like to say how glad I am that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer has, in three successive Budgets, not significantly changed the structure and pattern of direct taxation in this country. I know that New Labour was elected on a pledge that it would more or less retain the extremely popular and economically successful tax structure which it had inherited. It undertook to retain it, not least, I suspect, because it saw that as an important way of ensuring a useful majority in another place. At any rate, we have had three Budgets in which the tax structure has largely survived.
My second tribute is a more personal one. It is to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, who has patiently provided a number of Written Answers to questions I have been asking him on tax levels in Europe. It is the implications of those answers to which I should like to draw your Lordships' attention. He is now fumbling for his papers. Maybe he has taken with him copies of the answers he gave me.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, on the contrary, I was merely thinking, with pleasure, how all that work has now come to fruition and that we shall hear the conclusions which the noble Lord is drawing.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I want to emphasise to your Lordships the extremely favourable tax structure we have in terms of personal taxation in this country in comparison with other members of the EU. I should like to quote a few figures. First, as regards income tax, the top rate, as we know, is 40 per cent. It was reduced to that level by my noble friend Lord Lawson in 1988. It comes into effect at a taxable income of about £32,000 per year. In France the top rate is 54 per cent., which comes into effect at a higher level of £88,000. In
782
Germany it is 56 per cent., as it is in Sweden and Spain. In the Netherlands it is no less than 60 per cent. and comes into effect at £40,000. In Belgium and Denmark it is about 57 to 58 per cent. Even Italy has a rate of about 45 per cent.
Therefore, as regards direct personal taxation, we have, with Portugal, the lowest top rate. That gives the right incentive to those people who create economic wealth in this country.
Secondly, I should like to refer to capital taxation. Six countries in the EU have an annual wealth tax. I well remember in the mid-1970s a previous Chancellor of the Exchequer, the noble Lord, Lord Healey, attempting to introduce a wealth tax in this country. At least he produced a Green Paper proposing it. A House of Commons Select Committee spent a great deal of time examining it, the results of which we published in the Economist when my noble friend Lady Hogg and I were working there together. That leak dismayed the Select Committee and I was hauled in front of the Privileges Committee for leaking it. Nowadays, Select Committees are glad of any publicity for their reports. The wealth tax was abandoned. No one could find a satisfactory manner to avoid it raiding the cash flow of small companies. That represents quite an important difference between us and some of the other countries. In France, for example, the wealth tax has been a significant piece of political baggage that they have so far been unable to throw overboard, but I think that will come.
Capital gains tax in this country is generally viewed as income, as it is in other countries. That seems to me to be perfectly fair and I have no complaints. As regards inheritance tax, this Is the one country where it is not calculated on a family heirs basis as it is in most continental countries. However, significant and sensible changes were made to the structure of inheritance tax in this country by my noble friend Lord Lamont when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. The top rate is 40 per cent. but there are lower levels for business assets. Other countries have very high rates, particularly for non-familial inheritance. In Belgium it is still 80 per cent., in the Netherlands 68 per cent. and in France 60 per cent., with a threshold of only £1,000 for people who are not direct relations of the deceased person. Here, I believe it is £225,000.
I turn to the VAT: at 17½ per cent., this country is among the lowest rates. One of the boldest things to be done in the 1979 Budget by my noble and learned friend Lord Howe was to make a dramatic change to simplify and increase the rate of VAT so as to shift from direct to indirect taxation. In Denmark and Sweden it is 25 per cent. and in France 20 per cent.
Another particular aspect of our VAT regime which I believe is extremely important is the threshold below which a small business person, small trader or craftsman does not need to register and thus charge VAT.

783
Interestingly, only France and Britain have what I would regard as a sensible level of threshold, which in each case is about £52,000 of annual turnover.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord will of course realise that the French threshold rose from 125,000 francs to 500,000 francs as recently as 1st January this year.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I welcome the way in which certain aspects of the British system have been followed. I said a little earlier that some countries will have to continue to learn from the British experience in economic management. Privatisation is another obvious example.
I believe that this VAT threshold is most important. It encourages people who decide to make a go of a business. It gives them a direct advantage in being able to provide their services free of VAT, often on a small scale, and gives them independence. They are the small entrepreneurs so crucial to the country. It is not just large businesses which are important, but small businesses also. Italy, Belgium, Sweden and the Netherlands have no exemption threshold. That may, of course, have something to do with the disinclination to conform to taxation rules in those countries.
A few months ago I spoke to a senior director of the Ministry of Finance in France. He was complaining to me. He said, "You know, there are now 20,000 Frenchmen living in Kent. We have to get them back. It's your tax system which does it. We must have a level playing field". I am extremely anxious that Her Majesty's Government do not yield to pressure for a level playing field if it would mean losing the extremely favourable tax regime we now have in this country.
Nowadays, one does not hear of entrepreneurs, scientists or academics going abroad because they would be better paid. Such people are coming to this country. This country is becoming a place where the successful, the enterprising, the skilled and the talented can flourish.
I have one final point. I do not think I meet the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, on this point but perhaps philosophically I have some sympathy with her. I believe that a quid pro quo for a low taxation, for leaving money in the hands of the people who have it, is charitable giving. I do not believe that the charitable giving in this country is anything like as generous as it should be. This week the Sunday Times published its list of the rich. It also had a list of the charitable contributions made by certain wealthy families, and in many cases they were remarkably generous. The lack of comparable giving by other wealthy families suggests there is much more scope in this country for charitable giving.
I have one more figure, thanks to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. The 137,000 best-off taxpayers, each of whom has a taxable income greater than £100,000, among them have a gross taxable income in excess of £17 billion. That is around 2 per cent. of GDP. That is a lot of money and even if they were to give
784
only 1 per cent. of their income to charity, that would amount to a £170 million direct donation. Of course, the Government would be sharing in the cost because charitable donations are deductible. I suggest that with the generous personal tax regime we have in this country, people should be considering charitable giving at roughly the levels that wealthy countries are encouraged to set for their international aid programmes.
4 p.m.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I welcome, as does my noble friend Lord Skidelsky, the opportunity to have this debate, rather unusually in your Lordships' House, on public expenditure and taxation. I wish basically to follow the theme set out by my noble friend Lady Hogg with regard to the presentation of matters of taxation and public expenditure. I believe, as she implied, that standards in this respect have been falling. That ought to give us cause for concern. In an age of spin doctors there is far too much, as the Americans would say, "smoke and mirrors" in relation to presentation. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, almost gave the game away when he said that the Treasury has one view of taxation and official statisticians another. There has been some divergence of opinion in that respect.
My noble friend's Motion covers public expenditure and tax. They are now embodied in what is called a unified budget; the two sides have been brought together. However, I must express a disappointment. When we were told that there was to be a unified budget, one's reaction was to say that it would be possible to balance the effect of an increase in public expenditure and the implications of that for taxation, a point made a moment ago by the noble Baroness. But despite having brought the two sides of the equation together, it is still the case in the other place that only the executive can really take a decision about the balance. The House of Commons can vote for reducing public expenditure or taxation, but it is still unable, despite the fact that we have a unified budget, to say it would like to spend more, for example, on education or health, and as a result of that put up taxes. So in that respect it is not a truly unified budget where the two sides can be balanced. All that we and the other place can do is comment on the decisions which the Government have made with regard to the balance between the two when in reality it might be the case that the House of Commons would prefer to deal with it in a different manner.
My noble friend's Motion relates to both public expenditure and taxation. I want to concentrate on taxation. I make only one point on public expenditure, which was very much at the heart of the Government's proposals ahead of the election. They said that they would cut expenditure on social security in order to divert resources into expenditure on health and education. In that respect they have clearly failed. The increase in the social security budget has been very great and will be so over the next three years. The reallocation of resources which they said they were going to carry out has not taken place. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp

785
of Guildford, was right to point out the importance of the balance between those major items of public expenditure.
I turn to taxation. I take up only one point made by my noble friend Lord Marlesford with regard to the VAT threshold. It has always been a difficult issue. One has to balance the advantage to those below the threshold in relation to the competition of those just above the threshold, and it is a fine balance. I reflect for a moment—it is a long while ago—that when I was considering where the dividing line should come and subsequently legislating on it, the threshold was £7,000. I am therefore slightly horrified to discover where it has now got to as a result of the various economic developments in the intervening time. I should perhaps add that at that time VAT was only at the standard rate of 10 per cent. and there were major items of zero rating, including complete zero rating in relation to fuel.
I want to turn to the issue of whether the presentation of the Government has been adequate in relation to these matters, in particular the question of whether or not there has been a cut in taxation. That was a major item of dispute at the time of the Budget debates and indeed subsequently. I notice with interest a piece by Mr. Anatole Kaletsky who seems recently to have been producing articles of outstanding merit and often of considerable complexity. He had carried out research into the immediate reaction to the Government's Budget. At one point he said,
"'Everyone's a winner - guaranteed prize for every reader', gushed The Sun headline yesterday morning. 'Apologies for Brown-nosing, but this is brilliant - he's helped every one of us' was the considered view on The Mirror's front-page".
The reality of course is that that is not the case. Indeed, when challenged in the House of Commons by the Leader of the Opposition who repeatedly said that there had been an increase in taxes in the first three Budgets and that the Government had not cut taxes but had raised them, the Prime Minister insisted time and again that they had been cut. As Mr. Kaletsky rightly points out, that is simply false.
There are real problems in presentation. My noble friend Lady Hogg referred to the Red Book. We rely a great deal for our understanding of these matters on the Red Book which, as she rightly pointed out, a little over 20 years ago was an exceedingly slim volume. But it was an objective volume. One could rely absolutely on what it said whereas the present extremely glossy and heavy volume contains a great deal of opinion rather than fact. That is something which gives us cause for concern.
The other documents on which we rely increasingly in addition to the Red Book are the series of press releases which are issued at the same time. Those again were an innovation of the early 1970s. I believe that they were a good innovation and that people outside rely heavily on them for factual information. For those in business who need to react rapidly to what the Chancellor has said, the press releases are extremely valuable. But it is important that they should be impartial, and I do not believe that that is now the case.
786
I give one example of a Treasury press release dated 9th March with regard to income tax. There was a paragraph on the new lop rate of income tax which was widely welcomed, and a second paragraph referring to the cut in the basic rate of income tax to 22p. But there was no mention at all of the 20p band of income tax having been abolished. One would have thought at the very least that that was worth mentioning. It is a specific item which I believe to be important. Similarly, if one is going to put forward a comprehensive and balanced picture, it is true that there are cash flow savings for the small employer covered by Inland Revenue Notice 22 with regard to specific changes. But there is no mention of the effect which the introduction of the working families' tax credit would be likely to have on the cash flow of small companies. Indeed, the Government, on a Second Reading earlier this week, made it absolutely clear that they did not propose to give way on that particular matter. So there are real problems here in that respect.
I turn now to a rather more specific point and one which I believe to be important; namely, the exchanges which took place yesterday during Question Time with regard to the Government's press releases. Noble Lords will recall that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, asked what had happened with regard to the Government's press release which stated that pensioners who suffered as a result of the abolition of the bereavement allowance, which is due to happen in April 2000, would be more than compensated as a result of the proposed new bereavement payment. As the Minister recognised yesterday, the statement made in the press release was untrue. It is not the case that that change will more than compensate pensioners. One must acknowledge that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, apologised most clearly yesterday for what was a mistake. Indeed, I would be in the forefront of those who accept the apology which was made. However, it does not bring us to the end of the matter.
As I pointed out when quoting from reports in the popular press a few moments ago, we were all under the impression that everyone would gain. However, as a result of the change, we now find that that is not the case. Although the noble Baroness has apologised, the question remains as to whether those affected who were misled at the time feel that this is adequate. At all events, I believe that we are entitled to know who was responsible for the mistake and what action has been taken as a result. More particularly, we need to know whether the Government propose to do anything to help those who will be adversely affected by the change. I have in mind especially widows aged 60 to 64 who do not get the higher tax allowances and who are, therefore, more adversely affected. It is most important that such matters should be checked and that the presentation which is put forward should be such that we can rely on the statements which the Government and the Chancellor of the Exchequer make. I believe that there are important issues involved as regards presentation which need to be considered further.
I have spoken for longer than I intended. I have but one further point to make in relation to public expenditure and taxation. The whole basis of our

787
parliamentary system of control of the executive has always been based on the control of public expenditure and taxation. I view with growing concern the possibility that these matters may increasingly be transferred to Brussels as a result of a policy of harmonisation. No doubt in some respects there may be a case for doing so. There are the present problems of smuggling, as mentioned earlier, which arise because of the big difference between our tax rates on tobacco and alcohol. Such matters give cause for concern. Perhaps there is a case for a more standard view in that respect, not least because the EU seems to be remarkably schizophrenic on, for example, the question of tobacco. Indeed, part of it argues that taxes ought to go up while other parts argue that taxes ought to remain as they are. Of course, these are matters for the future, but noble Lords are right to be concerned about the degree of parliamentary control on the two most important aspects of economic management; namely, taxation and public expenditure, to which my noble friend Lord Skidelsky has rightly drawn our attention.
4.14 p.m.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, I, too, am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Skidelsky for initiating this important debate, although I am no tax expert and will concentrate on two points in particular. I believe in the vital importance of trade and commerce to the future prosperity of this country. The taxation system has a profound effect, often in unexpected ways, on the success of our industry and commerce. In this connection, I would also place great emphasis on the importance of manufacturing industry. That seems, in my view wrongly, to be unfashionable these days. I should declare an interest here as a non-executive director of our small family business and also—I shall return to this point later—I should say that my husband has a diesel car.
Today everyone emphasises the importance of the service sector in international trade and commerce. As a liveryman of the Worshipful Company of Engineers in the City of London, I would not wish in any way to gainsay that. May our financial services continue to take a leading place in the world and flourish root and branch forever! However, a healthy services sector depends to an important extent on a healthy national manufacturing sector who comprise, in the first place, initial customers and therefore payers for those services.
Manufacturing today depends on being ahead of the world in high technology, high added value industry—although we must not forget to encourage our bread and butter industries—may be low added value. Often one has to import simple household articles which could perfectly well be made here because shops only seem to buy from abroad, whether it be kettles, hammers, deep freezers or toasters. I would wish to see them better made in Britain, thereby providing employment and reducing our national trade deficit.
However, high technology manufacture depends on high technology well-qualified staff; and there should always be investment in good training and continued professional development, as other noble Lords have
788
said this afternoon, if our industry is to keep ahead of the rest of the world. Investment in expensive new technological machinery to improve productivity is also essential. Both those fundamentals need fiscal incentives. They are a great burden on small and medium-sized enterprises long before profit arrives on the market for the new invention.
If I were Chancellor of the Exchequer—which, fortunately, is not likely to happen—I would impose a statutory duty on the Treasury not only to balance the annual budget but also to look ahead for our commercial prosperity to the next five to 10 years and to plan those fiscal incentives for our industry and commerce in close consultation with industry and commerce so that the proposals are down-to-earth and practical. Civil servants are not experts in running business, especially small business, and they must take advice in formulating proposals. If plans are well laid, industry and commerce will prosper and the Inland Revenue will rake in increased taxes in a few years' time. New ideas take time to reach markets, so returns will take time to arrive. But if our industry and commerce prospers, employment will rise and everyone will benefit, including the Treasury.
I should like to make another detailed but very important point about the last Budget, which hiked up substantially the tax on diesel fuel to the predictable fury of the road haulage industry, which depends vitally on diesel fuel. My noble friend Lord Marlesford said that not many industries were thinking of going abroad, but the latter is. I believe in the importance of the environment, sustainable development and the reduction of NOx, SO2 and CO2 in reducing global warming. I therefore use public transport whenever possible and take the very good advice given by the DETR in its new leaflet on fuel economy issued in January this year. I can tell noble Lords that it is well worth reading. However, if one looks down the list of vehicles and their fuel consumption, where are the best figures? They are to be found in relation to cars with diesel engines. Lower fuel consumption reduces CO2 production immediately, so surely we want to encourage people to buy diesel cars. Putting up the tax does not do that.
The report of our Select Committee on Science and Technology in 1995 was full of good, long-term strategies for reducing global warming from road transport in a variety of ways— gas-powered vehicles, fuel cells, and bi-powered vehicles using different fuels for urban and long distance travel. All these longer term improvements, which will have to be developed through ingenious and innovative research and development by the motor industry and its expert, well qualified engineers, need careful fiscal planning if we in this country are to be ahead of the international field in reducing global warming and selling our expertise to other countries throughout the world. Again, the Treasury needs to get together with industry in planning future fiscal strategy so that we achieve these longer term aims both for the environment and our own prosperity.
As I waited for my train today I noted with pleasure a goods train going by fully loaded with containers, probably from Felixstowe. That is fine for long distance

789
travel, and to encourage it Britain may need to develop efficient terminals in London and the major cities for quick transfer of containers, perhaps by piggy back lorries. However, the majority of long journeys in this country are less than 50 miles, and they may involve short hops between supermarkets and small firms. Trains are no good for that. Even as regards longer journeys, every train journey requires a lorry journey at either end to deliver to final destinations.
All the goods we need and buy in the shops have to be delivered by lorry transport. Therefore a tax on diesel is a tax on every person in this country as prices of goods will inevitably rise to pay for that tax. That is a "stealth" tax, if ever there was one. Road haulage is the major life blood for industry and commerce travelling our national road arteries. By all means let us plan lorry deliveries efficiently to fill lorries and for goods to arrive just in time in the shops for our families. That requires less tax on fuel and vehicles to enable our road haulage companies and shops to prosper to provide employment for their staff and not to go abroad, and to keep down the cost of living for everyone. Her Majesty's Government must act now to achieve that aim with regard to the taxation system as soon as possible.
4.22 p.m.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Skidelsky for giving us the opportunity to debate this matter.
A week or so ago Peter Kellner, writing in the Evening Standard, commented that in 2001–02 we—that is, the public—
"shall be £1.6 billion worse off, compared with the taxation and benefit policies bequeathed by the Tories. Labour, then, is taxing more, and spending more, than the Conservatives would have done. That fact should be beyond dispute … Real political debate should concern the merits of Labour's strategies (do we want lower tax or more spent on schools and hospitals?) not the facts that underpin them".
I agree with Mr. Kellner on two counts. First, whatever gloss, whatever obfuscation, is put upon the figures, it is manifestly the case that the Government, by stealth or otherwise, are,
"taxing more, and spending more, than the Conservatives would have done".
Secondly, he is entirely right that debate should focus on the "merits of Labour's strategies". This is precisely what my noble friend's Motion invites us to do.
In this I have a particular axe to grind; namely, excise duty, specifically on tobacco product. We had a reasonable run at this subject during Question Time earlier today but I make no apology for returning to it. I should perhaps also point out for those of your Lordships who are not aware of it that I am a wholly unreconstructed smoker. Excise duty is not per se one of the kaleidoscope of "stealth" taxes that the Chancellor has initiated in his Budgets to date. No, it seems to me that it is increasingly being used as the Treasury's blunt instrument. a fiscal cudgel to pummel what are perceived to he wayward social attitudes into submission. In this context it would be churlish not to admit that there are good health grounds for imposing sensible, but proportionate, duty on tobacco product.
790
Few would argue with such a proposition. At the same time, of course, excise duty also raises substantial revenue.
I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I mention a few facts and figures, which I hope the Minister can confirm. The UK's tobacco industry currently contributes some £10.3 billion a year to the Exchequer of which some £8.3 billion is tobacco excise duty specifically, the highest in real terms of any country in the world. In his Budget the Chancellor raised cigarette tax by 17.5p for a packet of 20, an increase of 6.3 per cent. Since coming into office, this Government have raised cigarette tax by 57.5p. As a result, an equivalent packet of 20 cigarettes costing £2.05 in Belgium now costs £3.88 in the UK. What are the consequences of this obsessional interest of the Treasury—and, it has to be said, the health lobby—in attempting to tax tobacco product into perdition?
As we all know, smuggling of excise product—both tobacco and alcohol—is now rife because of the hugely wide differential in price that now exists between the UK and our immediate continental neighbours. In effect, this Government's policy—and that of the party of these Benches when it was in office, I make no distinction—is to incite criminal activity. This carries with it profound implications for law and order policies in general. It is not only the fact that smuggling has the potential to be such a profitable enterprise. That, of itself, explains why it is that so much of the evidence indicates that it is an enterprise that is proving increasingly attractive to highly organised criminal gangs, not least those actively involved in drug trafficking. It is also the fact that the existing resources of Customs and Excise and the operation of our criminal justice system mean that the chances of being caught and convicted are negligible and that the penalties available to the courts are not and cannot be an effective deterrent.
Here, with all due respect to the Minister—bearing in mind our exchange at Question Time—I can assure him that there was a report on Meridian TV last week which revealed plans for 1,000 Customs jobs to be cut in the south of England. The report included, not surprisingly, an expression of concern from a senior Customs officer that such an action will have a severely deleterious effect on Customs and Excise's ability to combat the menace of smuggling.
What of the health argument? I have already suggested that some level of duty on tobacco product is justifiable. I have no difficulty with that. However, the available statistics suggest that, while the regulated market has shrunk by 8 per cent., the "unregulated" market of smuggled product is on the increase. Illegal sales currently account for 80 per cent. of handrolling tobacco sold in the UK; here an association with the drug culture is manifest. The black market is estimated at 8 per cent. of the total cigarette market and is increasing at the rate of 5 per cent. per annum. The statistics suggest that the crucial group of under-age smokers, by definition an unregulated market and those for whom a propensity to smoke is most perilous, is on the increase. However else children may be obtaining their packets of cigarettes, they certainly are not doing

791
so legally. It does not stretch credibility to suppose that there is a correlation between smuggled product and youth smoking. Indeed, it is worth making the point that high tobacco duty is, by its very nature, regressive. Not only does it have a detrimental impact upon the most vulnerable, it also acts disproportionately upon the poorest in our society. Where in this is that much vaunted word "fairness"? Given this, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the consequence of the Government's excise tax policy is that their own very worthy health and social policy objectives are being seriously undermined.
Finally, what are the revenue implications of the persistent hike in tobacco duty? The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, in a recent Question on this matter, suggested to his noble friend the Minister that the law of diminishing returns was beginning to operate in this area. The Minister denied this categorically, stating:
"I simply do not agree with my noble friend that we have reached the point of diminishing returns".—[Official Report, 18/3/99; col. 827.]
Very gently, I suggest that that is a smidgen disingenuous. The Red Book states quite clearly that anticipated revenue from tobacco product for 1999–2000 is £7 billion, compared with its current level of £8.3 billion. At a pinch it might be possible for the Government to argue that that is an indication of the success of their policy of reducing consumption overall. Would that it were so. But it is the Chancellor's own estimate that reveal that revenue losses in this area are now running at £1.5 billion. If that is not the operation of a semblance of diminishing returns, I am a Dutchman!
In conclusion, it is no surprise that Mario Monti, the EU Commissioner with responsibility for taxation, has observed that
"Member states with high tax rates would have to recognise that tackling the smuggling problem fully may require them to reduce national rates".
I simply wish that the Treasury was prepared to recognise this.
4.31 p.m.
Lord Dahrendorf: My Lords, may I crave indulgence for a small philosophical comment on a subject of which many noble Lords, as the debate has shown, know a great deal more than I do? Taxation is a classical subject of parliamentary debate, yet something odd has happened. The Official Opposition keep on saying that the Government are raising taxes by stealth, the implication being that lower taxes are intrinsically a good thing. The Government keep on saying that they have not raised taxes and that the level of taxation is in fact 0.4 per cent. or 0.5 per cent. lower than it was on 1st May 1997. The implication is the same: that there is something intrinsically bad about taxation.
I want to argue that the level of taxation defines the boundary between what is properly in the public realm and what is not. One can take decisions about that. And different groups in given countries, and indeed different
792
countries, take different decisions. Let me make three comments which are all, I hope, relevant to the main subject of our debate.
First of all, many speakers have quoted the differences in levels of taxation between different countries, including different countries in Europe. My good friend the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, to whom we owe this debate, referred to the fact that the total level of taxation in this country is under 40 per cent. of GDP, and on average in the rest of the European Union it is 50 per cent. or above. That is true, but I would argue that it simply indicates different attitudes to what is properly in the public realm and what is not. What is more, I would argue that these different attitudes are all viable. It is wrong to presume that those who are over 50 per cent. will have to come down to 40 per cent. just as it is wrong to presume that those who are under 40 per cent. will have to go up to 50 per cent.
There are fundamentally different attitudes, and these different attitudes have their own justification. In other words, I am genuinely and deeply against harmonisation of taxation in the countries of Europe because of the different political and economic cultures in those countries. It is a general philosophical point, which could be illustrated in a number of ways, which I shall not do at this point.
It leads me to a second and equally important issue. At the same time as seeing these differences, there are of course changes: countries redefining the limits of the public realm. It is true that in a number of continental countries there is now a tendency—I think a welcome tendency—to let the pendulum swing a little more in the private business zone direction. Equally, I believe that there is a good case for saying that in this country the pendulum should swing a little more in the public direction and that there has been a neglect in the public realm of the public space in the widest sense.
My noble friend Lady Sharp of Guildford pointed very plausibly to the various objectives of taxation and public expenditure. She talked about the public good, about redistribution and about health and education. The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, I believe, started with Ibn Khaldun and with the statement that excessive government spending can undermine an economy. It all depends on what you call excessive, of course, but may I suggest that if you neglect the public realm it can also undermine the economy.
One of the great subjects of European developments is locational competition of business. Countries should be able to try to attract businesses by using the instruments at their disposal. While I accept the sometimes rather vague notion of level playing fields, I think it is at least as important that differences are there and are allowed. But a sensible public realm is part of an attractive environment for business. To mention obvious examples, if the infrastructure of a country deteriorates—and I am afraid it has deteriorated in this country—and if it deteriorates beyond a certain point then it is literally impossible to attract business from other countries, together with investment, because that is one element.

793
If vocational training does not work and if therefore skilled labour is not available, because that is part and parcel of an attractive location for business, it is therefore part and parcel of what needs to be done in the public realm. It may be argued that vocational training is sufficiently in the interests of business to be capable of private finance. I believe that is a mistaken argument. In another context I would be happy to make the case for publicly supported vocational training. However, it is not just vocational training. It is general education as well, starting at the nursery end and going on through the educational system. So an attractive public realm is part and parcel of a society which creates sustainable wealth over a long period and tries to attract investment from within and without.
My third point is that of course one has to think carefully about the kinds of taxation that are used. This subject has arisen by reference to a number of specific issues. They are clearly important, but it is an important question of whether we go down the route to hypothecation, for example, or whether we stick to general taxation. To me, it is a very important issue because it is so closely related to the future of representative government and, as a traditionalist in these matters, I am strongly in favour of general, rather than hypothecated, taxation. I rather regret that the popular view seems to be that taxation is acceptable only if those who pay the taxes know exactly what the money is to be spent on. I hope that in parliamentary debate we can hold against this. There is also the important question of whether we increasingly abandon direct taxation in favour of indirect taxation, or stick to a principle which is very closely related to citizenship and civic participation. Income tax is an important element of a civic society.
I should like to sum up such points, such reflections, which are more general than much of what has been said here. by making one plea: that we lift the taboo over the subject of taxation; that we discuss more seriously whether there are not issues where it is in the specific and general interests of a civilised and advanced society to be open for increases in taxation where there are clear objectives and purposes; and to discuss the pros and cons of more or fewer taxes. A more rational tax debate would be a great step forward for the political culture of this country.
4.41 p.m.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, it has been a long time since I have dared to speak in one of these economic debates. I used to feel that it was a Wednesday debate and I was reminded of Wednesday's child being full of woe. It was always bad news: there was a balance of payments deficit, interest rates were too high, taxation was too high, there were budget deficits and so on. Now, for the first time, we have a structured economy that seems perfectly reasonable and I wonder what the future will be. My noble friend has chosen well the phraseology of this debate which applies a certain use of French words—subterfuge and camouflage, possibly to be followed by that awful word "sabotage". There is nothing wrong with the economy at the moment.
794
I am interested in people's perception rather than their expectation. Here I will go back to my friend Professor Laffer. I have always liked the Laffer curve and the general concept that if one had nil taxation. one would have a breakdown of law and order; and if one had 100 per cent taxation, one would have no revenue. Somewhere between the two was the correct point, which was not an exact point but what was perceived to be fair. That might be two for the state, one for me, or three for the state, one for me. But if it was too many for the state, productivity fell.
In order to correct that imbalance, one had to reduce effective taxation quite dramatically, which we have done if we take the figure down to 40 per cent. as compared to 50 per cent. in the EU. This has contributed fairly strongly to the revitalisation of our economy. But I am concerned about what the base of that economy now is.
One of the saddest moments of my life was standing in this place when the nationalisation of the shipbuilding industry was taking place. My family have been keen on ships—I like ships and my grandfather was the last Member of Parliament for Maryhill in Glasgow. The Clyde was a place I loved and I set out to try to help save some of those shipbuilding firms. Nationalisation way back then—despite the Geddes Report and the creation of British Shipbuilders and the problems with Upper Clyde Shipbuilders—wiped out that industry.
I should like to remind your Lordships that we have successfully—either because we have been in a post-imperial society or a post-industrial society—wiped out our greatest industries. A hundred years ago, 85 per cent. of the ships of the world were built in the United Kingdom; at the start of the First World War, 50 per cent. of all the ships floating on the surface of the earth were built on the Clyde: and 74 per cent. of all steam locomotives were built on the Clyde. Now, of course, 50 per cent. of all personal computers in Europe are built in Scotland. Here we are—I am a Scot—wanting to get rid of one of the main bases of our industrial economy. Then, suddenly, today or yesterday, we have the collapse of Kvaener Govan and the destruction of the last shipbuilding enterprise in Scotland, give or take a few smaller ones.
It is interesting that after the First World War 40 per cent. of the ships of the world were built in the United Kingdom; that fell to 30 per cent.; two years ago that fell to 1 per cent.; and now it is down to nothing. We have of course Harland and Wolff. But the industry has not necessarily collapsed worldwide. We were leaders in the mining and mining equipment industry; we were leaders in long-wall mining and other mining activities. That has steadily disappeared. So, too, has the textile industry and its great machinery.
All of those industries often had very good trade associations, but their decline is not related to the United Kingdom economy alone but to the role of the United Kingdom in the world economy. We exported equipment, bought back the end products, and were in partnership with our colonies or imperial Britain. Now we could equally well be in partnership with much of

795
the world because we are one of the most favoured nations in terms of partnership. That, too, has something to do with taxation, a point made by my noble friend Lord Marlesford.
We are the most favoured place in the world for a foreigner to live and work. It is pretty galling for some people to realise that when they go out and buy a meal in a restaurant they are paying far more than the foreigner who pays tax only on his UK earnings. But that has contributed to a large extent to encouraging senior management worldwide to want to come to live in England. People will say, "The Japanese want to play golf and it is cheaper to live here"—that may be one reason—but we have attracted the greatest amount of foreign investment of all the countries of the European Union. That attitude and the wish to come here continue.
But there are cracks in the paving, or should I say in the terrazzo tiles. In a short period of time we went from having a great motor car manufacturing industry, which was based entirely on the motor car or transport, to losing and wiping out that sector. Very quickly, over a period of about seven years, we returned to being a net exporter of motor cars. We were competitive, we had the modern technology, and the cars became good again. Foreigners wanted to buy them and they bought them in great numbers. All the problems of electronics and so on were ironed out and we produced good products. Now the cracks are there. There is again intervention by the state in an industry that may, for whatever reason, be declining—there is a decline in the demand for automotives—and money is going in in terms of public expenditure.
I hate the idea of declining industries and I hate the idea of them being supported falsely by governments. The base of our economy as it is today bothers me; who will pay tax in the future. I was involved in the report of a committee on manufacturing chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, some 25 years ago. We pointed out that we were concerned about what would happen to manufacturing industry when oil ran out. As my noble friend said, if we did not manufacture things, what would we service—other people's manufactures? That report—which was rubbished by my party and by everybody else—was correct, although there is no pleasure in being right after the event. We saw manufacturing industry as a percentage of GDP fall from 32 or 33 per cent.—I was discussing this with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, before the debate—to 20 per cent., according to the Library.
In the meantime there are two sectors which have started to emerge and overtake. One is financial intermediation. Instead of manufacturing accounting for something like 30 per cent. of the economy, financial intermediation is up to nearly 30 per cent. The other sector is wholesaling and retailing. These are businesses where, although added value is created, it is not the same value as the added value created in other sectors. I am not objecting to those industries charging large hourly or daily rates, or to retailers and wholesalers doubling the entry price of their products before they hit the markets, but these kinds of factors are making us uncompetitive.
796
We must add to that some of the taxation now being applied—whether it be on alcohol, on cigarettes or in particular on diesel fuel, which is outrageous. For a period of time we had no diesel cars because they were more expensive. But they are far better. As my noble friend pointed out, the emission is far lower and the mileage is less. Yet, suddenly, as though somebody feels that they want to force lorries off the road, the price of diesel is increased. I do not understand, when energy costs worldwide have come down in real terms to below 1974 prices, why we have this strange differential when we are an energy nation.
In the United States, five litres of fuel can be bought for the equivalent of one litre in Europe. I do not understand that. Why should we have a high-cost energy policy? It is because the Government need to tax fuel in order to have more money. Why should it be cheaper to buy a bottle of whisky in a supermarket in France than at a duty-free shop in London when these are our own products? Looking at the subject on another level, why do we suddenly find that over the past six to nine months the word has spread across the Continent of Europe that the United Kingdom is too expensive to visit and to set up projects here. Yet our labour rates are not high. It is these kinds of taxes in the economy that come through, not as stealth tax, but as adding a greater proportion of tax to the economy as a whole.
I am not particularly worried about all this. I do not think that noble Lords opposite are worried; otherwise, more of them might well have spoken. The Government have inherited, for whatever reason, a strong economy and there is a good opportunity. It has to be said that my own party made some pretty disastrous mistakes by raising interest rates so rapidly that we created a form of deflation for a while.
There is a small perception by Professor Laffer that I should like to see introduced. It is to have a generally friendly Inland Revenue. The cheapest way to get rid of your Lordships would be to bankrupt us all! It would mean that we could no longer sit in this House. The Inland Revenue in this country has always been fairer than any other revenue in Europe. Yet on the Continent of Europe there is one thing that Professor Laffer likes. In general, people in Europe think of their income as a net income, not a gross income. The British are so proud of their gross income of so many hundreds, or tens, of thousands a year that they show off; they feel socially insecure. We could perhaps shift that direction and ask: what do we actually receive? How many noble Lords know what their net income is each year? Most noble Lords probably know their gross income. I am a man for more net!
4.51 p.m.
Viscount Torrington: My Lords, I wish to add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, for introducing this debate and for his excellent tour of the development of taxation in this country. Like my noble friend Lady Platt, I am no economist. I shall stick to areas that have already been touched upon but which demand further exploration.

797
Some 36 years ago the Oxford Union held a debate on the redistribution of wealth. In the course of that debate, I inadvertently drew the fury of the Left upon myself by declaring that, because I drove a large old American car, I paid more tax each time I filled it up than most of my contemporaries paid in a year.
It was a cheap jibe, but it is uncomfortably close to the truth today: we Brits have just about the highest road fuel taxes in Europe. As my noble friend Lady Platt mentioned, our haulage firms are now hit by excessively high diesel fuel costs. But they are also now beset by the highest licensing charges in Europe. Many are apparently considering re-registering their vehicle fleets outside the United Kingdom. We may yet see the redoubtable Eddie Stobart setting up house next to the almost unpronounceable Mr. Norbert Dentressangle. No doubt all will be fitting their lorries with tanks that are sufficiently large that they never have to fill them up with diesel fuel in the United Kingdom when they do business here.
I agree to some extent with the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, that any thinking person accepts that taxation, both direct and indirect, is a package deal, and different countries have evolved different balances and mixes of taxes to fill the public purse. But whether we like it or not, we are now engaged in the Europe-wide debate on tax harmonisation. As a Euro-fence-sitting Tory, I should nevertheless reckon myself firmly against any attempt by Brussels bureaucrats to enforce harmonisation across the board. But I do believe that the natural laws of competition demand, and should make for, a certain degree of harmonisation, particularly in matters such as excise duties. It really is not reasonable to expect a man travelling home by car to resist filling up his boot with cheap beer and wine at a continental port in order to save his business for his local wine merchant in England, who is forced to sell the same goods at much higher prices.
The inevitable consequence of that is that British retailers in the south are missing out on a massive amount of business. I appreciate that it is illegal to buy liquor in commercial quantities, duty paid, in Europe and bring it back to Britain for resale. That is the reason for the Customs initiative described earlier in response to a Starred Question. However, it seems to me that that flies in the face of the objectives of a Europe without frontiers and shows that we still have a long way to go to achieve a common market. HM Customs and Excise would say that it is losing a fair amount of revenue—I believe the figure given by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was £220 million—thanks to both the legal and not so legal parts of the cross-frontier booze and baccy trade. By contrast, I would argue, like the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that Customs and Excise is not so much losing revenue as harbouring an unrealistic and unreasonable expectation of ever having such revenue in the first place given the imbalance of duties on either side of a mere 20 mile wide waterway in what most people now believe, perhaps erroneously, to be a customs union. The system itself has something wrong with it if moving goods from one part of a customs union—for customs purposes one country—to another part is a criminal offence.
798
To return to the road haulage industry in the context of harmonisation, I recently heard an excellent argument. put forward to the effect that continental lorries entering Britain should be made to pay a toll or temporary road tax to cover the cost of the use of our motorway system. The Government, in defending themselves over their decision in the Budget to make Britain's truckers pay the highest licence charges in Europe, claim that although continental lorry licences are cheaper than those in the UK, European truckers have to pay heavy road tolls in many countries. Unfortunately, expensively registered British trucks have to pay those same tolls when engaged in international transport.
Her Majesty's Government should therefore seriously consider reducing the recent increases in licensing charges for British trucks and instituting a simple foreign commercial vehicle charge. The Swiss do that, even for private cars, as I know to my cost. Woe betide any foreign-registered vehicle, be it a car or a truck, found on a Swiss motorway without its tax sticker.
Such a charge could be payable through the purchase of a windscreen sticker which, like the Swiss version, would tear apart if removed. The stickers could be available at the port of entry and at truck stops, and be valid for a range of periods and for a range of vehicle weights. We could even offer reciprocity: allowing trucks from countries that levy no motorway tolls or road use charges on British-registered trucks to be exempt from the charge.
Returning finally to excise duties, I note that such bodies as the Brewers and Licensed Victualers Association have been uncharacteristically silent since the Budget, presumably because, for once, drink was not seriously clobbered. But could this be the beginning of harmonisation—of recognition by the Government that in a free market you simply cannot expect people to pay high prices in your shop when the guy next door is offering the same goods at a massive discount? Perhaps, as my noble friend Lord Northesk hoped, realisation is dawning, and excise duties will have to change.
4.57 p.m.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, I am very sorry to have missed the opening remarks from the two Front Benches and some of the earlier speeches in this debate. I apologise, and look forward to reading them in Hansard tomorrow.
Perhaps I may also congratulate my noble friend Lord Skidelsky on the timing of this debate, to coincide precisely with the 200th anniversary of the introduction of income tax into Britain. I hope that some noble Lords may have seen the excellent Inland Revenue exhibition to mark that anniversary, which showed the many fascinating twists and turns in the evolution of taxation in our country.
I also declare a special interest in this debate as the co-author of a pamphlet on taxation and public expenditure policy to be published by the Centre for Policy Studies next Tuesday, which the CPS is following with a debate on the subject in May.
For many years a simple question has troubled British governments: how to spend more money on good things such as health and education without ever-increasing

799
taxes. Many serious attempts have been made to address that issue in the past, but most have failed. The overall tax burden has risen from below 30 per cent. of UK GDP in the 1950s to 37 per cent. in 1998, defeating many determined efforts to reduce it.
Next Tuesday will be the 20th anniversary of when my noble friend Lady Thatcher became Prime Minister. Nobody could have wished for a more forceful and determined advocate of tax reduction; yet even my noble friend, with all her unique power, was not able to achieve that goal. According to some estimates—probably depending on which side of your Lordships' House one sits—the tax burden is heading for a record 38 per cent. in the next two years.
Judging from the plans set out in their Red Book, the new Labour Government have decided to raise tax, just as the previous Conservative Government did. These habitual responses to economic difficulty illustrate the problem. Faced with the legitimate need to maintain sound public finances, successive British governments, both Labour and Conservative, have chosen to raise the overall burden of taxation. That has been going on for 40 years.
Most British governments since the Second World War have been elected on a promise to keep taxes down: yet most left office with taxes higher than when they came to power. The tax burden has gone up, whichever party has been in government. It is not as though this steady increase has achieved a noble purpose. There has been a remorseless increase, in communities all over Britain, of the linked problems which are now commonly described as social exclusion: poor housing, poor public health, low standards of education and high rates of crime. The tax and benefits system is supposed to make things better, through the redistribution of income and wealth. Instead, it makes things worse by reinforcing the very conditions that lead to social exclusion. At the same time, we are paying more tax than at any point in our peacetime history, which in itself inhibits the economic growth and job creation which could form part of the solution to the problems of social exclusion.
At the end of the day, the terrible problem at the heart of the present system never goes away. We have all grown painfully familiar with it. Taxes always seem to be going up, yet there never seems to be enough money to spend on health and education. We saw that again in the latest NHS crisis last winter.
International economic comparisons help to explain this phenomenon. They suggest that a higher tax burden is associated with weaker economic performance and less money to spend on public services in the long run. These comparisons are indicative of a negative relationship between government size and full employment and between high tax rates and full employment.
The dynamic effect of a low tax burden on an economy is illustrated by the position in the United States. The US government taxes only 28 per cent. of national income; but, instead of finding this insufficient to meet its spending needs, the independent US
800
congressional budget office expects that the US economy, from a 28 per cent. tax burden, will generate a budget surplus over the next 10 years of a staggering 2,400 billion dollars, while we struggle to avoid budget deficits with a tax burden of 38 per cent.
Calls for modernisation of the tax and benefit system are not new. The question that arises is: why has it never happened? There is one simple explanation. It is not because our political leaders are oblivious to the need. On the contrary, there is almost universal agreement about what the problems are and the urgency of tackling them. Rather, a national culture has emerged which stops political leaders taking the required action.
British politicians have become paralysed by fear of public reaction to fundamental reform of our system of tax and benefits. Every action that is proposed is always analysed in terms of winners and losers, short-term effects and precise calculations of personal financial advantage and thereby political advantage.
Unless we change our political culture, we shall never change the dependency culture which has been inadvertently created. Agreement is needed that we are on the wrong path and that we must change to a different one. Yet there is little sign of such an agreement on the horizon. On the contrary, the political position is exactly as it has been for many years. My noble friend Lord Skidelsky touched on that in his opening remarks.
The Right always said that one should cut tax, and the only way that it could think of to do that was by cutting public spending. The Left always said that tax served a moral purpose and that it would be cruel and uncaring to cut public spending. So that was it: stalemate. The tax burden went up, whoever was in office. That is why it is no longer sufficient to change politicians; we need to change to a new path. We need a bold and radical approach.
The true battleground for reform at the start of the 21st century is not the National Health Service or the education system but the tax and welfare payments system. Until the UK embraces a fundamental reform of that system, it will stagger under the weight of an ever-increasing tax burden and will struggle to make adequate resources available to public health or education. If opinion polls are any guide, there is enormous public support for the reallocation of government expenditure towards front-line healthcare and primary and secondary education. Yet this transformation has proved elusive, even for a Government with a massive parliamentary majority.
Incremental reform of the existing tax, national insurance and benefit systems over the past 30 years has created a highly complex and contradictory framework of transfer payments between government and individuals. All attempts to unravel the wasteful and unintended features of the transfer system, such as the unemployment and poverty traps, have been half-hearted and piecemeal. In 1999 the problems loom as large as ever and the human and financial costs of large-scale benefit dependency are still escalating.

801
The current system of taxation and transfer payments is a horse designed by a committee which has been in standing session for 200 years. The outcome is an ungainly beast of burden. The time is ripe for fundamental reform.
5.6 p.m.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, I look forward to reading the pamphlet co-authored by the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, which is to be published next week. On the basis of what he said today, some of the arguments might he familiar, but I am sure that they will be more persuasively presented than ever before.
I found the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, refreshing. It was non-partisan and philosophical in its approach. Indeed, the debate has been more illuminating than I had expected, partly because some of the most fundamental questions of politics have been raised, perhaps as a result of the tone set in the noble Lord's speech.
I too should like to approach the matter in a non-partisan fashion. Some of my remarks may not be altogether approved of by my Liberal Democrat colleagues. I wish to start with the general and look at the link between tax rates and growth. As the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, said, there has been much argument that high public spending and high taxes lead to lower rates of growth, although he favoured the view that it is when public spending is going down and when expectations are for lower tax that one sees the most favourable growth effect, which is an interesting thesis.
I have always been fascinated by the academic work on tax and incentives and have found it inconclusive and not totally persuasive. The academic literature suggests that there is no particular effect either way. Tax acts as a disincentive to work in one way because people prefer leisure. On the other hand, if people wish to reach a particular level of income, it acts as an incentive to work because they have to work more to achieve that income.
I found the work inconclusive and not always persuasive, partly as a gut reaction which is widely shared. I would not argue that, when I was at the Treasury in the period to which the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, referred, when we had a budget surplus and a rate of growth of over 4 per cent. per year, our tax system was ideal. We had a top rate of 83 per cent. and a 15 per cent. unearned income rate on top of that. I agree that one of the most important things that the Conservative government did was to reduce those rates. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, when Chancellor, reduced those rates, although I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, went too far. I have never felt it necessary for the top rate of tax to be below 50 per cent. Undoubtedly the rates had been too high. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, that very high tax rates seem to have a distorting effect.
I have doubts as to whether expectations of future rates determine growth. The noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, referred to the fact that the United States has very low taxes as a proportion of GDP and has recently had a high growth rate. But the comparison between
802
the United States and Europe depends very much on the particular period that one takes. The fact that the economy of the United States has grown faster than that of the Continent of Europe is a fairly recent phenomenon. If one considers the post-war period, generally the European Union has achieved a faster rate of growth.
There are now particular difficulties about considering countries with high levels of public spending. The three most successful countries in Europe in terms of growth are Ireland, the Netherlands and Denmark. Denmark and the Netherlands have very high rates of tax and public spending. Perhaps there has been a recent change because of globalisation. It may well be that in the present climate there must be a reduction of taxation levels in Europe; and certainly it appears that capital taxes have an effect.
I am struck by the huge difference between the number of employees of venture capital companies represented on the American NASDAQ market (9 million) and those employed by the very few companies represented on the equivalent European market, EASDAQ (9,000). That is a new market, but it appears that the creation of jobs will depend to a considerable extent in future on venture capital. This is a field in which the euro should help to create a much deeper and more liquid capital market on the Continent. That raises the question whether capital gains tax is too high. I suspect that here I lose some of my colleagues.
I was always struck by the fact that during President Carter's administration, despite his own wishes, United States capital gains tax was reduced and there followed an explosion in small and medium-sized technological companies, particularly around the Boston hemicycle. I believe that the connection between venture capital and its enormously important role in future and the level of capital gains tax is more important than income tax.
I turn to some particular points that have been made relating to the Budget. On the whole, I much admire the general approach of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He has made a number of important mistakes. He made a mistake in his early Budgets in taxing companies rather than consumption, particularly his taxation of pension funds. Referring to the speeches made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hogg, and the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, I believe that the charge of obfuscation in the Red Book is made out. The energy tax is mistaken, although unlike other noble Lords who have spoken I believe that the Chancellor would have been much better advised to go for a carbon tax. That would have been much more effective in its impact on the environment and, if recycled, would have done a great deal to increase the number of jobs.
However, I am impressed by the Chancellor's overall strategy. He has not repeated the mistakes of former Labour Chancellors—for example, the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, in 1964 and the noble Lord, Lord Healey, in 1974—when public expenditure was expanded to a degree that could not be contained and in subsequent years the Labour government struggled to control excessive public expenditure. Gordon Brown has not made that mistake. What is more, the Chancellor has

803
been extremely effective in the presentation of the public accounts and his whole approach to the Golden Rule, whatever the particular criticisms may be. Certainly in his Budget he has shown himself to be particularly adroit. To cut the basic rate of tax and to start to introduce a 10 per cent. tax was almost a brilliant stroke. He shot the Conservative fox.
But while it was politically adroit, I cannot say that it was a justified measure. The Chancellor has reduced the amount of money available for public services. If one looks at the proposed measures, as shown by the speeches of my noble friends Lord Dahrendorf and Lady Sharp, nowadays it is the Liberal Democrats who are the champions of public services. If one considers the needs of education, a higher level of spending on that service is required not just for the quality of society but for economic reasons. Although the economies of Germany and France are not greatly flourishing, their exports and manufacturing industries are much more successful than ours. Why? The reason is that the standard of education in those countries is much higher than ours. The proportion of unskilled labour in Germany is about 16 per cent. whereas in the United Kingdom it is 61 per cent.
One must also consider the very great needs of the National Health Service. One should not criticise the record of the Government too much. They have provided for a rise in spending on the NHS in real terms in this Parliament of 3.8 per cent., which compares with 3.1 per cent. under the previous Conservative government, which is not a bad record on the face of it. I believe that we should look at the percentages and not the billions that are trotted out, often several times, as new announcements.
One must face the fact that the standard of the National Health Service is very poor in European terms. Rationing is prevalent and will increase. The inexorable rise in cost will not be met by the present provision for National Health Service spending. I believe that in time more radical measures will have to be taken and that in the end we shall face the choice of continuing rationing, which is totally unacceptable, restricting the NHS to a basic service and recourse to reinsurance and private provision, which I also regard as wholly unacceptable, or, if we want to keep the NHS as a universal and comprehensive service, the need for charges. That is a form of hypothecation that I believe is acceptable.
The case for charges was powerfully made out in a book on the health service by Mr. John Wilman of the Financial Times. We must face the fact that we cannot pursue the aim of lower taxation and good quality public services. The quality of our public services is essential to the quality of our society and is much more important than a 1 per cent. cut for political reasons in the standard rate of income tax.
5.17 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, on initiating this debate, which has been of very high quality. My noble friend Lord Haskel made a
804
very thoughtful speech, but there have been some very high quality contributions from Opposition Benches, which is all the more remarkable in that as of yesterday morning it appeared that the debate would collapse. Clearly the Opposition Whips had to persuade people to speak at short notice because nearly all of the names were put down yesterday. Perhaps the contributions were all the better for that. I always believe that one of the curses of Wednesday debates is that people read out speeches that they have written postprandially on a Sunday afternoon. The speeches have been a good deal fresher today and I am grateful to have had the opportunity to listen to them.
This debate could have been on three alternative subjects. The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, described it as our version of a Budget debate, but it has not been very much that. To a considerable extent it has been a rational debate about taxation, as the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, described it. It could have been a theological debate about definitions of taxation, tax credits and all those things that occupied the mind of the Treasury Select Committee of another place in its recent report. I prepared an elaborate defence of the Treasury against those criticisms and against Mr. Ruffley and the House of Commons Library. Your Lordships will be pleased to know that I do not have to use any of it because none of those criticisms has surfaced in the debate this afternoon.
What has surfaced, quite understandably, is a complaint about the presentation of the Budget figures. I do not think that we can be blamed for the way in which the Sun or the Mirror interpret the Budget, unless we have positively misled them, which I do not believe. Nevertheless, I accept the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hogg, that as Budgets have become more complex, and as we have moved to a Budget which covers income as well as expenditure, the Red Book is hard going. It is true that some of the important material is towards the end of the Red Book rather than in a more prominent place. For those who do not read to the end—and I wonder how many do—I can see that there could be difficulties.
The Treasury Select Committee commented on that at considerable length. I wish to make only two points about its conclusions. First, its general conclusion was that it got there in the end: that the figures in Table B9 on page 120 are comprehensive, and set out the various options for interpretation of what is meant by the tax burden.
The second point arises from what Andrew Dilnot said to the committee. It is reported at paragraph 16 of the report. He said:
"It is possible to say … [as the Chancellor did] 'changes announced in this Budget will cut the tax burden' and that can be a true statement, while it is also a true statement to say that, as a result of all the Budgets of this Parliament, taxes will be going up in April. It is also the case that the Chancellor can state that net tax and social security contributions fall between this year and next as a percentage of GDP despite the fact that tax payments are going to rise next year as a result of the Budgets we have already seen".
I congratulate any noble Lord who can read that and conclude that there is a single right way to present figures. Clearly we are all applying different criteria. Our definition involves net taxes and social security contributions. That at least has the benefit that it is

805
recognisable by those who are taxed. In other words, it is recognisable in terms of the net impact of all government activities on the household and companies sector.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hogg, began by praising the 1979 Red Book and suggested that our more complex presentation nowadays has an element of obfuscation in it. It is true that the Treasury issues shortened leaflets for public consumption about the Budget. I have before me a press comment on a leaflet headed A Budget for lasting prosperity containing such tendentious statements as,
"The Budget helps deliver high quality public services. The Government will spend more on the services people care most about while maintaining firm control of public spending. The Budget takes steps to achieve this by spending money to save money. The Budget helps business and enterprise. The Budget helps the environment. Recent inflation performance has been the best over half a century".
Peter Kellner of the Evening Standard—he has already been quoted—comments that,
"This material should have been financed out of party funds. To be specific, the Conservative Party should have paid for it for those quotations all come from a leaflet issued by the Treasury following Kenneth Clarke's last Budget in November 1996".
I rest my case. I think that we can now move on to rational taxation debate and to a Budget debate.
Baroness Hogg: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Does the noble Lord accept that there is a difference between pamphlets—we can debate who should pay for what; it sounds as though I would he in total agreement—and the Red Book? It is important that the Red Book is kept free from such polemics. My argument related to the extent to which the Red Book had been sliding towards the pamphleteering end of publications. That is a matter about which we should be concerned.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I listened to the noble Baroness's argument as closely as I read the Red Book. I find the words "sliding towards" somewhat equivocal. I do not think that she indicated satisfactorily that there was obfuscation or any misleading, either intentionally or unintentionally. She said that the real complications were set out later in the volume. I accept that. But I do not think that that is the kind of criticism which has been made, for example, by Mr. David Ruffley.
I should love to take part in a rational taxation debate. I should love to take part in a debate about Laffer curves. I agree very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, said about it not being taken for granted that low taxation is good or bad, and high taxation bad or good. The question is what it is being used for.
I was also interested in the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, about expectations. He takes expectations over a long period. I hope he will accept that when one comes to a range of possible options between 36 per cent. and 38 or 39 per cent. of GDP, expectations do not come into it. While these are public figures in the sense that everyone is entitled to know them, they are not figures which affect people's view of
806
the way in which Government approach matters. They certainly do not justify saying either that the Government are a tax and spend government in disguise or, as the Liberals wish to say, that we are not sufficiently a tax and spend government.
What comes out of the rational debate—I am not capable of taking part in it at an academic level—is that we have a perception by ordinary people, and will do so over the next year, of lower taxes being paid: a 10 per cent. starting rate now; a lower national insurance contribution for 20 million people; working families' tax credits in October of this year which will save £24 a week for 1.5 million families; and the 22 per cent. basic rate next year. That is the perception which the Government intended to give and have given. I believe that it will be reflected in public opinion in the future.
I turn now to a debate on the Budget. I shall have to cut it short. This is a Budget about economic stability. We inherited a situation of rapidly rising inflation, with unsustainable levels of public borrowing. We took tough decisions in 1997–98. We took the control of short-term monetary policy outside political control; and we set public finances on a stable footing. They are all witness, as the Treasury Select Committee agreed, to a particularly tight fiscal stance. So we have inflation under control. It is on target. We have interest rates under control. The peak over the past two years has been 7.5 per cent. compared with figures of 15 per cent. for a whole year in previous economic cycles. Long-term interest rates are now the lowest for 40 years. The mortgage rate is the lowest for 33 years.
The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, made great play of the Budget deficits. We inherited a Budget deficit of £28 billion. We now have a Budget surplus of £1 billion. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, questioned our spending controls. The expectation for this Parliament is real growth of 1.5 per cent. per annum in spending compared with 2.75 per cent. in the former Parliament. We have 400,000 extra jobs since the election. Youth unemployment has declined by 57 per cent. Long-term unemployment has been cut in half.
In a situation in which a quarter of the world is in recession, we have been relatively stable in an uncertain world. I accept all that has been said by the noble Lords, Lord Higgins and Lord Selsdon, and the noble Baroness, Lady Platt, and others about manufacturing. However, manufacturing is not in recession—or if it has been it was for only a short time. There is already an improvement in business expectation surveys. The contrast we must make is with the early 1990s when manufacturing output declined by 7 per cent. and investment by 28 per cent. and 1 million jobs were lost in manufacturing.
The Budget supports the monetary policy. The Monetary Policy Committee has found it possible to loosen the policy because we have locked in the fiscal tightening. We have been able to give a £6 billion boost as the economy moves below trend and we have been able to allocate an additional £2 billion of public investment. During the next five years, we expect a

807
surplus of £34 billion, compared with a £149 billion deficit under the Conservative government during the time in which they doubled the national debt.
I accept what has been said about the need for support for productivity and enterprise. We are below our American and European competitors. However, in helping investment and innovation we are reducing corporation tax by 3 pence to 30 per cent. The small company's rate will be reduced from 23 per cent. to 20 per cent. There will be a 10 per cent. starting rate for 270,000 firms. As regards innovation, we have the R&D tax credit for new and small businesses which will underwrite almost one-third of their research and development costs. The Small Business Service will provide detailed support for small businesses.
The noble Baroness, Lady Platt, was right about the need for high technology training. That is an important part of the lifelong learning programmes of the Department for Education and Employment.
I refer to the environment only because it has arisen as an issue in relation to road haulage. However, I should like to speak at length on the Kyoto targets and the plans to implement the Marshall Report. However, I cannot accept the arguments used by the hauliers about the road haulage industry. It is true that in line with our existing commitments we have increased the price of diesel fuel by 6p a litre, but we have increased the differential for ultra low sulphur diesel. The changes we have made to vehicle excise duty very much favour the vehicles which are cleaner and cause less damage to the roads. Our policies on vehicle excise duty and fuel duty are driven by business concerns, but they are also driven by environmental concerns. Anyone who examines the evidence objectively will agree that the overall tax burden, taking into account labour costs and corporation tax, is very favourable in this country compared with European countries.
As regards families, it is true that we are replacing the married couples' allowance. The noble Baroness, Lady Hogg, made that point. Of course, the allowance was made at the same rate to all married couples, including lone parents and cohabiting parents. It could be made twice to a single couple in the year that they separated. The new children's tax credit is more generous and will be better focused where it is needed for children. Under the MCA the claimant had to be a man; now the claimant can be either a man or a woman. Before leaving that matter, I should like to point out that the social security budget is not out of control. It will rise at less than half the rate of the previous government's, and it will not be spent on subsidising unemployment but on improving the conditions of life of poorer families in our society.
As I race through my speech, I turn to our provision for the elderly. There is a £1 billion pensioner package in the budget. Minimum income guarantees will be uprated in line with earnings, not with prices. The winter fuel allowance has been quintupled. Single pensioners will not pay tax below £5,720. A typical pensioner household will be better off by £240 a year.
808
Of course one of the most important things is encouraging work rather than dependency. In that sphere, we are abolishing the national insurance entry fee and aligning the lower earnings limit with income tax. That is an enormously important change because it means there will be no income tax or national insurance paid on the first £87 a week. In October, we are introducing the working families' tax credit which means that families with a full-time earner will have a minimum income of £200 a week. That is £10,000 a year. There will be no taxation on earnings up to £235 a week.
I shall skip over the provisions relating to the over 50s, although I know that they are of interest to your Lordships, because I want to say a few words about public services. It is true that there is a huge need, in particular, for capital expenditure on public services. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, made that point very effectively. We no longer have the rule that £1 of revenue and £1 of capital equal £2. For that reason, we have been able to set up the capital modernisation fund which, among many other things, will apply to accident and emergency units and the hospital building programme, which is the largest since the war. We have allocated £0.4 billion for modern technology for the National Health Service. I could go on.
Further, as regards revenue expenditure, noble Lords do not appear to like us talking about the £19 billion provided over, three years, but that will be used to provide smaller class sizes, more nursery education, better pay for teachers, and literacy and numeracy training referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, and for vocational training referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf.
Yes, I shall refer again to the £21 billion for the health service because it means, among other things, 7,000 new doctors and 15,000 more nurses, and in conditions of fair pay for nurses.
I do not apologise for this being a Budget debate rather than a taxation debate. There are one or two further points to which I must reply, but given the time I have taken I must do so in writing. However, I say to the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, that we are in no way ashamed of having increased the price of 20 cigarettes by 57.5p. When we are accused of suffering from diminishing returns I point out that there are two kinds of diminishing returns. One is losing revenue, the other is stopping people smoking. If we are doing the latter we are happy to put up with diminishing returns. I hasten to say that diminishing returns do not mean diminishing revenue.
The VAT threshold was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. Customs and Excise carried out a consultation exercise last year and the conclusion was that this worked both ways. If you are just below the threshold you do not like the fact that you cannot cover the tax on your raw materials; if you are above the threshold you can recover it, but you have to charge your customers. I do not believe that there is any particular problem with the VAT threshold.
To the extent that this has been a Budget debate, the Government have been grateful for the opportunity to respond to it. To the extent that it has been a debate

809
about rational taxation, I personally have been pleased to hear it although I cannot claim to have made a positive contribution. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part.
5.29 p.m.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, I count it as something of a success for our debate to have reduced the Minister to such evident distress that he had to read out the bulk of his prepared speech. I enjoyed the first part of his remarks a great deal more than those he rushed through.
I have always preferred high quality in debate to a large quantity of speakers. We have been exceptionally fortunate today in both respects. As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said, the debate has covered philosophical, technical and special topics. All have been relevant to the Motion. All who took part have been highly knowledgeable, and I am extremely grateful for their contributions. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Armenian Massacre, 1915
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will reconsider their refusal to recognise as genocide the action against the Armenian people by Turkey in 1915.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords speaking in this debate on a topic which is tragically timely. The noble Baroness, Lady Symons, has kindly explained why she is unable to reply, and I would like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, for kindly taking her place.
The United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, adopted in 1948, is the most widely accepted definition of genocide. Article 2 specifies five criteria. Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group as such; killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of one group to another group.
The massive, systematic assaults upon the Armenian people in Turkey in 1915 are widely recognised and historically irrefutable. I will mention a little later some examples of ways in which the first criteria were met. The fifth criterion was also met by the policy of taking young Armenian babies and young children and placing them in Turkish state-run orphanages, with the declared aim of Turkification.
Those who wish to defend Turkey offer diverse excuses. For example, while recognising that massacres of Armenians did occur, they suggest that these were
810
not official policy. But historical evidence shows that the systematic mass killings of 1915 and 1916 were more than just massacres or atrocities. They were a premeditated state crime, involving the army, the police force, regional and local authorities and criminals specially released from prison to carry out the killings.
The genocide started with systematic ethnic "decapitation", in the form of the arrest, torture and deportation of the intellectual and political leaders of the Armenian community in Constantinople; they were deported to the interior of the country, where most were killed. Leading Armenians in provincial capitals were similarly eliminated. Other policies included the transfer of Armenians serving in the Ottoman army to unarmed so-called labour units, where many died from maltreatment and starvation in policies similar to the Nazis' method of annihilation by labour; those still surviving were subsequently killed.
Systematic deportations of remaining civilians continued from March until the autumn of 1915, with different policies for men compared with women arid children. Men were usually separated and slaughtered; women, children and elderly people were forced to undertake long marches through desolate and mountainous terrain; marches designed to kill. Those who survived and reached Aleppo were forced onwards into the deserts of Mesopotamia, where the final stages of annihilation were achieved—some dying in concentration camps, where tens of thousands were kept without food or adequate shelter, or others driven into caves containing petroleum which were ignited, burning the trapped Armenians alive.
Numerous eye-witness accounts describe in great detail the systematic suffering inflicted on the Armenians. Time permits only one reference. The German Ambassador, Wangenheim, who was well-known for his anti-Armenian sentiments, admitted in a report to the German Foreign Office in a letter of 7th July 1915 that the so-called deportations of the Armenians could not longer be justified by military necessities, but were caused by the genocidal intentions of the ruling Young Turks. He wrote:
"The very fact and the way in which the deportation is carried out prove that the Government is indeed intending to annihilate the Armenian race in the Turkish Empire".
Estimates of numbers of Armenians who died vary from conservative British estimates of 800,000 to German Embassy figures of 1.5 million. As the Germans, as Turkey's allies, had the most access to information in the Ottoman Empire, their estimates are probably the more accurate.
Many of the methods of extermination hear striking resemblances to those subsequently used in the Holocaust. They included medical experiments, usually carried out on Armenian men, generally soldiers; the first experiment with a gas chamber, disguised as a disinfection room, in the city of Trabzon to kill Armenian children; and the torture, rape and subsequent slaughter of women, often en masse. In many towns, bands were engaged by the authorities to play music louder than the screams of victims in torture chambers.
Another striking parallel with the subsequent Holocaust was the transport of many victims in wagons designed for animals. Armenians from Central Anatolia were forced into wagons designed for sheep, which allowed only a stooping position.
Numerous reports confirm the details of the horrors associated with the genocide of the Armenians. They include contemporary diplomatic sources of France, Austria-Hungary and Britain, as well as eye-witness accounts of humanitarian mission organisations in Turkey. There are also innumerable gruesome, first-hand accounts by those Armenians who managed to survive. And perhaps especially significant are accounts by courageous Turkish scholars who protest against the official Turkish crime of silence and demand Turkey's recognition of this genocide.
Many national and international bodies have recognised the genocide, often despite massive Turkish protests. They include the General Assembly of the Council of Churches, in 1983; the UN Human Rights Commission, which, despite Turkish protest, adopted in 1985 a revised study on the prevention and punishment of genocide crimes of this century, mentioning Armenia as one of these genocides; and the European Parliament, which adopted a Resolution on the Political Solution of the Armenian Question in 1987. The resolution maintains that Turkey can become a member of the European Community only under two conditions: recognition of the historical fact of the Armenian genocide and observation of the human rights of minority groups in Turkey, particularly the Kurds.
Many parliamentary bodies have also acknowledged the Armenian genocide, including such bodies in Argentina; the Russian Federation—the State Duma; the Republic of Cyprus; Greece; and Belgium; and the French National Assembly—although the French Senate refused to put the motion on its agenda following threats by Turkey to cancel large commercial contracts.
Some people argue that it is neither important nor helpful to dwell on the past; that it is better just to look ahead. I believe this argument is fundamentally misconceived. It is of the utmost importance that this genocide be recognised—important for the Armenians, for the Turks themselves and for Britain.
First, for the Armenians: a nation which suffered the first genocide of this century has also had to suffer the hurt and insult of the denial of the enormity of its agony, denied both by Turkey and by too many members of the international community. Moreover, Armenia's fight for recognition and the energy which has had to be used to counter Turkey's attempts to rewrite history dissipate energy and resources from imminent priorities. And there can be no basis for forgiveness and reconciliation without Turkey's willingness to admit this historical reality.
It is also important for Turkey to recognise the genocide. Taner Adcam, the first Turkish scholar to approach historical truth, rightly said that the Turkish republic is built on the corpses of murdered Armenians. The taboo which prevents mention of this crime is a hindrance to the healthy development of Turkish
812
domestic and foreign policies. To free itself from the curse of the past and to grow in democracy, Turkey must acknowledge the Armenian genocide.
In foreign relations, that would bring international respect and confidence-building measures of enormous benefit to Turkey and its neighbours. I have already mentioned that conditions for Turkish entry to the European Union stipulate this recognition. Recognition would also encourage trust, co-operation and political stability with neighbouring countries. For example, Armenians in Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh might be reassured that they are less likely to become victims of renewed Turkish-Azeri policies of aggressive pan-Turkism.
It must be in the interests of all who live in the region to seek economic co-operation and political stability. These cannot be achieved while Turks continue to live a lie and while Armenians continue to suffer an unresolved hurt.
Turkey should also understand the damage to many of its own people by continuing denial of historical truth. Some years ago I had the pleasure of visiting Turkey to give a series of lectures on nursing and healthcare. I found many of my colleagues, who became great friends, were fully aware of the genocide, freely admitted it and expressed their wish that their government would do so, so that they could live honestly with themselves as Turkish citizens and build good relations based on reconciliation with their Armenian neighbours. Until the truth is recognised, many decent, honest and principled people in Turkey have to endure a schizophrenic existence to their own discomfort and at the cost of international peace and justice.
It is very important for the Government of the UK to recognise this genocide, as this would prove that the Government are honouring their commitment to human rights and to an ethically-based foreign policy. Also, the Government would be following the good example of those who have already recognised the genocide. Otherwise, the UK remains stigmatised in the shameful category of those who consistently and over many years have allowed other interests to distort commitment to truth and justice.
This has been the century of genocides, starting with German war crimes in south-west Africa and culminating in Rwanda and the Balkans, with Kosovo presenting a hideous contemporary example. If nations are allowed to commit genocide with impunity, to hide their guilt in a camouflage of lies and denials, there is a real danger that other brutal regimes will be encouraged to attempt genocides. During the recent debate on Azerbaijan's attempted ethnic cleansing of the Armenians from their historic land of Nagorno-Karabakh, I referred to Hitler's monstrous rhetorical question before he embarked upon his genocidal policies against Jews and Poles in Poland:
"Who speaks today about the Armenians?"
Unless we speak today of the Armenian genocide and unless the Government recognise this historical fact, we shall leave this century of unprecedented genocides with this blot on our conscience; we will embark upon the

813
new millennium with a blemish on our national honour and integrity; and with tacit encouragement for other genocides in years to come. We therefore owe it to our own nation, to the Armenians, to the Turkish people, and to future generations, to recognise this genocide, and I hope the Government give us this assurance tonight.
5.51 p.m.
The Earl of Shannon: My Lords, I must first declare my interest as chairman of the British-Armenian parliamentary group. I intend to speak briefly. I have a slight variation on the Question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox.
In an admirable speech, the noble Baroness set out the details of the horrors of 1915–18. No doubt we shall hear more about them from other noble Lords. Therefore, I shall not take time dealing with that aspect. I merely state that it is an historical fact supported by the most massive amount of evidence. There can be no argument whatever about that.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, said, what took place in 1915 is similar to what is now taking place in Kosovo except that in 1915 it was taking place on a much larger scale. The real crux of the Question we are discussing is that Her Majesty's Government have for so long and so obstinately refused to acknowledge that historical fact. Perhaps it is just a matter of etymology, of the word "genocide". I concede that the word was evidently not known in 1915–18 and therefore was not applied to the circumstances at the time. However, as the noble Baroness explained, after World War II, the United Nations, in 1948, drew up a precise definition of what "genocide" meant. It is absolutely clear. Very simply, it is the intention to destroy a people and their culture.
What happened in 1915–18 fits fairly and squarely into that definition. There can be no argument about that whatever. The word is now in common usage to describe such a crime. I draw another point from the speech made by the noble Baroness. In describing the present situation in Kosovo, our own Foreign Secretary recently, in a press article, referred to that matter. Adolf Hitler, to whom the noble Baroness referred, must be and will for ever be the greatest authority on genocide. He realised that what he was going to do was exactly what had been done to the Armenians. Who are Her Majesty's Government to ignore such an authority?
We have now reached the time at which we should stop ducking and weaving about this matter. We must grasp the nettle firmly. We must stop using descriptions such as "unfortunate massacres". It was clearly genocide. What happened was clear; the definition is clear; and they both fit together exactly.
Let us not have the theory advanced sometimes that it was not the Ottoman Turkish Government who caused it; that it was the activities of a small political party. When it happened, the military, the police, paramilitaries and irregulars, mainly Kurds—who are now whingeing about what the Turks are doing to them but it is what they were made to do by the Turks to the Armenians in those days—all simultaneously took
814
action. It did not occur gradually. That shows that it can only have been organised by a central government authority.
We should never have accepted at Nuremberg that the holocaust of World War II or the concentration camps and so on were the activities of a few breakaway Nazis. Most of the nation and certainly the government were involved. The same is true in this regard. There is proof. The Ottoman Turkish Government started to notify American life insurance companies that their policyholders were now dead and that payments under the policies should be made to the Turkish state. What reason do Her Majesty's Government have for defying that logic, fact and history?
5.57 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I was not certain that I should be able to be here for the start of the debate, so I removed my name from the list. I wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, in those terms. It may be that I shall wish to detain your Lordships for a couple of minutes in the gap. But since I withdrew my name, that means noble Lords have a few more minutes each, and I wish them luck.
5.58 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, for explaining that. I am afraid that I did not receive his letter but I do now have a little more time.
I apologise for speaking at short notice and, I fear, with minimal preparation, as will no doubt become all too obvious. I arrived back from the Alentejo late on Monday night in order to participate in yesterday's important debate. It was only when I happened late last night, accidentally, to glance at the provisional List of Speakers for this debate that I realised that there was a possible danger of this afternoon's debate being just a trifle one-sided. I say that as one who has always admired enormously the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and, indeed, other speakers who generally take her point of view on this matter.
At the risk of over-simplification in the time available, perhaps I may try to set the scene. By the standards of most of the past 600 years, although not, of course, by the standards of the last half of the twentieth century, the Ottoman empire was generally pluralist and reasonably tolerant, more so than most of Christian Europe during most of that time.
Sephardic Jews expelled from Spain in 1492 by Ferdinand and Isabella were welcomed to the Ottoman empire in their tens of thousands. They settled in Constantinople, Salonika, and elsewhere, where they prospered hugely. Although, to some extent, in that empire non-Moslems were second class citizens (like Arabs in Israel, Jews in pre-war Poland, Roman Catholics in Ireland at one time and Protestants in Franco's Spain) they were not third or fourth-class citizens, with very few exceptions. Indeed, provided that they obeyed the rules and did not rock the boat, the Armenians and other Christians could rise to senior and well-paid positions in Government as well as making money commercially.

815
In the first decade of this century, came the young Turks, who were ironically styled "progressives". Their philosophy included the idea of ethnic and cultural purity, which could clearly be achieved only by population transfers by one means or another. At the same time, the Armenians were gripped by the nationalist ideologies which were then sweeping through the world.
Then, of course, came World War II. Things went badly for the Ottoman empire. As always, scapegoats were sought. Fifth columnists were suspected everywhere—just look at what happened to bewildered Italian waiters in London in 1940 or to the unfortunate Japanese-Americans in California in 1942. Consequently, accusing fingers were pointed, above all, at the Armenians.
We all know broadly what happened next, though I must admit that I did not know things were quite as bad as have been described by the noble Baroness. What happened was indeed terrible. I do not seek to minimise the sufferings of the Armenians. However, I submit that it is not genocide as most people understand the word. It was not, for instance, comparable to the Chinese attempt totally to exterminate Tibetan identity and culture. Still less is it comparable to the Nazi attempt from 1942 onwards to exterminate the Jewish race the world over.
Perhaps I may enumerate a few of the differences. The Jews had always been good German citizens and fought bravely for Germany during World War I; indeed, many won Iron Crosses, whereas some, although not all, Armenians were indeed subversives. That was, no doubt, for understandable reasons. The Jews never retaliated against German civilians, whereas on the rare occasions when the Armenians had the upper hand—for example, following the Russian invasion of eastern Turkey towards the end of the First World War—they (again, perhaps, understandably) took reprisals upon Moslem civilians.
Most importantly, the Jews were hunted down and murdered everywhere in Germany and on the German occupied continent, even during the last days of the war in Europe, whereas atrocities against Armenians were confined largely to eastern and central Anatolia. The substantial Armenian community in and around Constantinople survived reasonably intact. I certainly had one Armenian friend whose parents lived in Constantinople through World War I.
Moreover, while the policy of the Ottoman government of forcibly deporting Armenians away from Russian frontier regions to Syria undoubtedly involved an enormous amount of suffering (in the same way as the Japanese forced marches of prisoners of war and European and Asian civilians during World War II led to terrible suffering), the deaths involved were incidental rather than the prime purpose of those marches.
Meanwhile, the murder of many thousands of Armenians by Kurdish and other civilians was not organised by the government even if—and that I concede—the government may have lost little sleep over it. Those massacres were partly fuelled by the sort of religious hatreds we have seen in the Balkans over the
816
past 150 years or more—remember that orthodox Christians and catholic Christians murdered one another in Yugoslavia for making the sign of the cross in the wrong way—and partly fuelled by resentment against economically successful groups, comparable to the hatred vented periodically against the Chinese minority in those parts of south-east Asia where Moslems predominate.
Despite the fact that what happened in 1915 is not and cannot be the fault of anyone alive in Turkey today, and despite the fact that the blame is not entirely on one side, I, too, wish that Turkish friends and acquaintances would express some sympathy with the Armenian innocents—if I may put it in that way—in public as many of them already do in private. I also wish that they would stop pretending that the Armenians were recent immigrants to Anatolia in the same way, ironically, as the Serbs pretend that the Albanians are recent immigrants to Kosovo.
However, as somebody who has been to Turkey quite a few times over the past 45 years, I can assure the House that we will never get a proud people like the Turks to modify their views by wagging an accusing finger at them, still less by branding their recent ancestors as the equivalent of Pol Pot or Hitler.
6.5 p.m.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for introducing this Unstarred Question. The fact that we are having the debate nearly three quarters of a century after these terrible events took place is testimony first to the fact that these islands deplore very strongly indeed the act of genocide. Secondly, it is testimony to the strong fellowship that has long existed between the British and Armenian people and our defence of them when dreadful events have happened to them. It is also a tribute to the courage and persistence of the noble Baroness and the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, who have worked tirelessly on their behalf.
I begin by stating that I admire the good qualities of the Turkish people at their best, as our worthy opponents on the Gallipoli peninsula in 1915, the year these atrocities took place; as our allies in Korea when we fought side by side with them under the UN flag; and as our partners in NATO, in which I have been proud to serve.
I should like to tell a true anecdote of the Korean war. American servicemen, British servicemen and Turkish servicemen were captured in some numbers by the Chinese. They were held in degrading and dreadful conditions. Some of them were tortured by the Chinese, their oppressors. At the end of 19 months' captivity, longer for some, they were released. Some were nervous and physical wrecks for the rest of their lives.
It was a matter of interest that the allies discovered that the Turks survived rather better than the Americans and the British. The question was asked of the Turks: why? What did they have that the British and the Americans lacked? The Turks said, "We have been better treated by the Chinese than by our own people." That, I suggest, is an example of the Turkish psyche.

817
However, I certainly did not admire the conduct of some of the leaders and officials of the Turks in 1974 in Cyprus when they invaded that island, although it was not my role then to criticise them since I, too, was a serving soldier under the UN flag. Neither do I admire their recent record on human rights. We will, I trust, hear more about that from my noble friend and kinsman Lord Avebury.
I deeply respect the Armenian people. As we enter another millennium we might recall that in the third century Armenia was the first state in the world to adopt Christianity. The Armenian people are survivors. Although incorporated into the Ottoman and Soviet empires they survived, yet again, to become a free and independent nation on 21st September 1991. Let them remain so; they richly deserve it.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, reminded us, the term "genocide" was coined in 1948. In that year the UN convention on the prevention of genocide came into force. I shall not ask your Lordships to recall that as we have just heard the terms. I prefer to define "genocide" as murder on a grand scale. I use the word "grand" with the deepest irony and distaste when we consider that 600,000 people, all civilians, lost their lives in 1915.
Some have argued that there was a war going on at the time and that these events, as we see yet again today, are inevitable in a war. But the events of 1915 occurred and they were genocide. Let us recognise that. Others argue that it was the first genocide of this century and it is important that we admit that we do not condone and will never forget it. But I suggest that this nation came near to practising genocide before 1915 during this century. I remind your Lordships that from February 1901 onwards, 4,000 Boer women and 16,000 children perished in 8,000 block houses (named concentration camps) in South Africa during the second Boer war. That is a stain on our record; we admit it.
The British Government of the time must share some of the responsibility for those events which were carried out by their officials in their name. It prompted the leader of my party, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, to speak out and pose the question, "When is a war not a war?" He provided his own answer: "When it is carried out by methods of barbarism."
I hope that the Turkish Government, Her Majesty's Government and others recognise the events in Armenia during 1915 as genocide, even if they cannot bring themselves to say so publicly. But, as I told the Minister earlier, I prefer to look forward, not back, as we enter the new millennium and I am sure the noble Baroness will wish to do so too when she comes to the Dispatch Box.
Population statistics are sometimes a useful guide. Today 3.7 million Armenians are living in freedom in their homeland; 5.3 million Armenians, part of the diaspora, live abroad, all in freedom. We are fortunate that 10,000 of those 5.3 million live and work in our homeland in freedom in London, Manchester and elsewhere. They serve our community as doctors, lawyers and businessmen. We are grateful for all that they do and I ask the Minister, now that Armenia is free
818
and independent again, to return the compliment that those 10,000 pay us by doing more for the people of Armenia.
I put forward some proposals the noble Baroness may wish to consider. First, will we consider carefully and act promptly in response to any request from the Armenian Government to assist them in remaining independent and in enhancing their recently re-acquired democratic system? We will then show their neighbours that we will not tolerate the events that took place earlier this century ever happening again.
Secondly, will Her Majesty's Government use their influence through the OSCE to seek a just and lasting peace over the dispute involving Nagorno-Karabakh which has festered and made that region insecure? Thirdly, cannot we immediately establish a British Council office in Yerevan? Why has it taken eight years to do that? Fourthly, to mark the millennium, will the Government consider assisting Friends of Armenia in Britain who wish to establish a chair of Armenian studies at the LSE or the School of Oriental and African Studies at London University?
Finally, we have sent £7 million worth of goods to Armenia and received a certain amount back. We are shortly to enter a new millennium. The noble Baroness may not wish to reconsider the Government's refusal to accept as genocide the action by Turkey against the Armenian people in 1915. If so, I regret that. However, the Minister and the Foreign Office may wish to be reminded of a famous story in the Bible. It concerns a woman caught in adultery. Christ was invited to censure her for her conduct—or should I say misconduct? Instead he told her to go away and sin no more. I hope that when the Minister comes to the Dispatch Box this evening, she will say loudly and clearly to the Turkish Government and other nations who persecute or have committed genocide against their neighbours—for example, the former Soviet Union in the Baltic states, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania—"Never do that again"!
6.14 p.m.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, put simply, I would not encourage the Government to entertain such a measure. Where would recognition of past ill-doing in the world end? There was widespread suffering of cataclysmic proportions borne by all sides during those war years.
Of course, I recognise that Armenians suffered. But official recognition would establish a less than useful and controversial precedent, serving only to exacerbate an already volatile situation. We should remember, in addition, that history is generally invariably interpreted in a partisan manner and is therefore unreliable arid inconsistent.
The world is a far different place now, but a world nevertheless still in turmoil. Armenia needs friends and this measure would serve only to alienate neighbours. Mercifully, we are moving to an era of regionalism; that of shared resources and shared responsibilities. Therein lies the best hope for the future.
A more relevant question, to my mind, could include when we are going to have clear guidelines on the contradiction between the perceived right to

819
self-determination and territorial integrity and the contentious issue of intervention. That, I submit, is an issue we should be tackling in a new world order.
6.16 p.m.
Lord Biffen: My Lords, like the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, I am a member of the Anglo-Armenian Association and am pleased to be so because of the deep affection I have for the Armenian people, their history and their witness to Christian values. In that context I was delighted by the nature of the speech of my noble friend Lady Cox. She set out a catalogue of the suffering of the Armenian people in the first war which was compelling and which must be a reminder to consciences the world over.
I should like to use the short period that I have available not to recapitulate the arguments about the suffering of the Armenian people but to say that in this Chamber we live with the echoes of the past. We live with a deep British concern about the authority and the rapaciousness of the competing nations in the Balkan countries. We live with Gladstone, the Midlothian campaign, the Bashi Bazouks and the deep anxiety about the nature of Turkish domination in the south-east Europe of that age. This is an occasion just to remind ourselves of that, because if we do not live with our history, if we are not fuelled by a sense of the methods it provides, then we are lacking in a major contribution that should be made to the public debate.
The truth is that genocide, mass slaughter or savagery are characteristic of this part of Europe and Asia and have been for decades. I do not say that in any complacent sense but as a recognition of the anger and concern that Gladstone and his generation felt about that part of the world. It was not just about British access to the routes to India. In fact, it is a timely message, when we are considering a moral capacity in foreign policy and in the action that has to sustain that foreign policy, that at the end of the day all those who practise ethnic cleansing or genocide have to be recognised in a world of realpolitik, because we cannot live in a world of perpetual revolution, reconciliation and argument.
There is realpolitik at the end of this and I am delighted that this debate indicates an understanding of the Turkish position as well as that of Armenia—Armenian ex-patriot that I am. I say that because, in this day and age, we know that sooner or later in the disputes now raging in the Balkan countries some kind of modus vivendi will have to be reached; and it is not one that will be reached using almost Crusader zeal. At the end of the day, whatever may be the halitosis from which our neighbours suffer, we will have to sit down and consider the matter in the belief that there is something better than aerial bombardment.
6.20 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, as threatened, I wish to take just a few minutes of your Lordships' time in the gap. I have to say that I was very impressed, as usual, by the history of this tragedy given by my noble friend Lady Cox. I thought it was generous of the
820
noble Lord, Lord Monson, when he said he did not regard the Armenian genocide as "genocide" in the sense of the word that most people understand, that he was good enough to admit he was not aware of all the facts outlined by my noble friend Lady Cox.
I was a little more perplexed by the line taken by the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, when he asked: where would recognition of past evil-doing finish if the UK Government were to recognise the truth of the Armenian genocide? I have to say to the noble Viscount that I have friends in commerce in Turkey. I cannot think of any one of them who would not prefer his government to come clean on this dreadful event. So I have to ask him, and indeed the Minister who is to reply for the Government, what is wrong with confession? Is it not always cleansing? If that were to happen, and if the Government were to encourage it, it would be a thoroughly healthy thing for the whole area.
6.22 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the question is not whether the events of 1915–16 took place, but whether they are to be described as "genocide". We have heard a variety of answers to that question this evening, just as, in correspondence and following questions with Ministers, we have been given a variety of answers. For example, the Minister in another place, Joyce Quin, said that it is not the job of today's Government to review past events with a view to pronouncing on them according to today's values and attitudes. I beg to disagree with her. She forgets Santayana's dictum that:
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it".
She also forgets that the genocide convention, the terms of which the noble Baroness has already outlined to your Lordships,
"recognises that at all periods of history genocide has inflicted great losses on humanity".
It is partly because we ignore or gloss over the past that I suggest we still have no effective means of stopping the genocidalists of today.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, quoted Hitler's infamous remark.
"Who talks nowadays about the destruction of the Armenians"—
I emphasise the word "destruction". Hitler undoubtedly knew about the Armenian genocide and used it as a model. So it is our business to pronounce on those crimes today.
In correspondence, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, takes a rather different line. She says that, in the absence of evidence to show that the Turkish Government took a specific decision to eliminate the Armenians under their control at the time, the British Government have never recognised the events of those years as a genocide. Well, no one had any doubts about it at the time. In the well-known government Blue Book of 1916, Viscount Bryce described the events in question as,
"an effort to exterminate a whole nation, without distinction of age or sex, whose misfortune it was to be the subjects of a Government devoid of scruples or pity".

821
The Turks dismiss that evidence as war propaganda, but the largest part of it carne from neutrals, some from the citizens of Turkey's allies, including the Germans, and most of the remainder from the survivors. The testimonies of the Blue Book were confirmed and amplified after the war by many sources, including the material that was collected for the war crimes trials that were to be held after the allied victory in 1918.
Unfortunately, Britain was partly responsible for the holocausts of 1915, as Mr. Lloyd George acknowledged in his memoirs, using that phrase. Britain procured the withdrawal of Russian troops from Turkey's Armenian provinces in the 1878 Treaty of Berlin. The European powers had a duty of superintending the application of measures to guarantee the security of the Armenians in those provinces, but, when it came to the test—the Sassoun massacre in 1894 and the numerous pogroms which followed over the next two years—we turned our backs.
If the noble Lord, Lord Monson, wants to look into the history of the matter, he should not start with 1915; he should examine the precursors of the genocide which took place over many years before that time. The Sultan, Abdulhamid, was the Milosevic of his time, adept at playing off the western powers against each other and seeing just how far he could go. Sassoun was, if you like, the test of European will, like Srebrenica a century later. Most of the population of 24 villages were totally exterminated. In Geligüzan young men were bound together and burned alive, while in another village 60 women were herded into a church, gang-raped and massacred.
If one looks at the whole of the two years of the Abdulhamid massacres, it will be seen that some 200,000 Armenians were killed and that the Ottoman authorities discovered that Europeans contented themselves with expressions of indignation which never approached the threshold of intervention. The massacres of 1894–96 were therefore a dress rehearsal for the genocide of two decades later, just as the atrocities in Bosnia led inexorably to the genocide that we are seeing in Kosovo today. Both the noble Baroness and the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, mentioned the parallel with Kosovo.
When the Ittihadists took over in 1908, the pogroms continued. In the Adana massacre of 1909, 25,000 Armenians were killed. The new government then reactivated the Special Organisation —a paramilitary outfit led by regular officers—which was charged with the duty of surveillance and neutralisation of internal enemies. They began collecting secret files on the Armenian leaders who were to be murdered. As has been said, the outbreak of war provided the Ittihadists with the opportunity to implement their plans for genocide. The Germans knew what was going on, but the Kaiser gave orders to all military and diplomatic personnel to keep silent so as to avoid harming the war effort. Yet the German Ambassador Wangenheim, who has already been quoted by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, said that,
"the destruction of the Armenians, which has been carried out on a large scale, resulting from a policy of extermination",
arose from internationally promoted attempts at reform.
822
The Allies were in no doubt about who was responsible. On 24th May 1915 they issued a joint declaration condemning the,
"connivance and often assistance of Ottoman authorities",
in the massacres, and the statement continued:
"In view of these new crimes of Turkey against humanity and civilisation, the Allied governments announce publicly that they will hold personally responsible all members of the Ottoman government and those of their agents who are implicated in these massacres".
When the arrests of Armenian leaders began in April 1915, that was an act of the state. In May 1915 the Interior Ministry issued a Temporary Law of Deportation, which led to the removal from their homes of virtually the whole of the Armenian population of the Ottoman empire, not just those living in eastern Anatolia, as the noble Lord, Lord Monson thinks. That, too, was an act of the state. Armenian men of military age were all conscripted into the army. After being used in labour battalions for a while they were almost all murdered, some being compelled to dig their own graves. That too was an act of the state and of the leaders of the state.
After the war the Allies considered how the laws IA humanity and the dictates of public conscience could be applied to crimes against civilian populations in wartime, and a tribunal was created to try those offences. The British arrested 118 alleged war criminals but in the meanwhile the French and Italians, who were hoping to get in on the ground floor with the Kemalists, sabotaged that international judicial process.
However, the Ittihadist leaders were tried by the Turks themselves and were condemned to death in absentia. In the key verdict, and the verdicts of tribunals sitting around the country under the control of Istanbul, the common element was the finding that the real purpose of the deportations was the extermination of the whole Armenian population of the Ottoman empire.
Your Lordships may have seen in the Observer magazine on Easter Sunday a remarkable account of the life of Thomas Buergenthal. He survived both Auschwitz and Sachsenhausen to become a distinguished lawyer in the United States. He said that giving people back their lives is not just a matter of punishing the guilty. He said,
"A nation has to confront its past by acknowledging the wrongs that have been committed in its name".
The failure to confront its past by modern Turkey not only affects the lives of the genocide survivors' grandchildren and great-grandchildren; it is one of the major problems confronting Turkey if it wants to be part of Europe and to live in peace and trust with the state of Armenia, all that is left to the Armenian people of their historic territories. By our continuing refusal to speak the whole truth of what we know about that appalling crime, and to give that crime its proper name, we ensure that its evil feeds down the generations.
Lord Monson: My Lords, the revelations of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, are extremely interesting and of course I cannot possibly dispute them. However, does he not agree that all these events occurred under the Ottoman empire and not under the Turkish Republic

823
which we now have? Would he expect the present-day Austrian Government to apologise for an atrocity committed by Croatian irregulars 85 years ago?
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I invite the noble Lord to consider the parallel of modern German governments who acknowledge the evils that were perpetrated by Hitler even though they are not responsible for them.
6.32 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Cox on securing this debate tonight. Her commitment and dedication to the important causes which she espouses have few parallels. As my noble friend has said, today's debate is tragically timely. A debate over whether a crime warrants the heinous definition of genocide will always be a matter of the utmost gravity in your Lordships' House. But current events emphasise its importance all the more. In the twilight of the 20th century we are witnesses to atrocities, massacres, suffering and grief barely dissimilar to those which scarred its opening years. We continue to be plagued by the same question: have the intervening eight decades which have seen the loss of so many innocent lives really taught us very little, and are we nearer to bringing about an end to man's inhumanity to man? For when we look at what is happening in Kosovo this year it seems that few lessons have been learnt to ensure that past crimes against humanity can serve to prevent future ones.
Wide-ranging discussions and constructive debate on this issue are so important. As Armenians across the world prepare to observe the annual Armenian Remembrance Day no one should deny that—as my noble friend Lord Biffen said—the Armenian people suffered a tragedy of epic proportions in the years from 1915 to 1923. There is no doubt that the events which began in the spring of 1915 represent a crime against humanity by any standards, when, in the city of Constantinople, more than 200 Armenian civic, political and intellectual leaders were arrested, deported and subsequently executed. The senseless deportations and the slaughter of untold thousands of Armenians in the Ottoman empire which followed still today mark one of this century's darkest chapters. As we have heard, estimates of those Armenians who died in the massacres range from between 600,000 to one and a half million.
However, to decide the case for recognition by the British Government of these events as genocide, three key questions must be answered. First, is there evidence that the Armenian massacres constituted what we today would understand as genocide? Secondly, were the deaths of the Armenians part of a systematic and officially sanctioned policy of the Ottoman rulers? Thirdly, to what extent should the British Government in 1999 take steps to reassess events of 1915, and what practical purpose would be served by such a step?
My noble friend Lady Cox has referred to the most widely accepted definition of genocide, that which is contained in Article H of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide approved by the General Assembly of the United
824
Nations on 9th December 1948. Under the genocide convention not only genocide but also conspiracy to commit genocide, direct and public incitement to commit genocide, attempt to commit genocide and complicity in genocide are punishable. As my noble friend said, in this convention genocide means any of the following: killing members of a national, ethnic, racial or religious group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of such a group; deliberately inflicting on such a group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within such a group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, such a group. It is this definition which is used in the 1969 Genocide Act. It is therefore important to pose the question to the Government of whether the Armenian massacres would be deemed genocide today under the 1969 Act.
My noble friend Lady Cox has described the deeply disturbing events of 1915 and the violent and inhumane treatment of so many Armenian victims in deportations, in death marches without food or shelter, in concentration camps, when it is estimated that perhaps half the Armenian population were forcibly deported from their homelands in the north east of the Ottoman empire. My noble friend put her case for the recognition of the action against the Armenian people in 1915 as genocide with all her customary eloquence and sincerity. No stranger to persuasive arguments, she and other noble Lords referred to the number of international and national bodies which have done so, including in particular the European Parliament, the General Assembly of the Council of Churches, and a number of other parliamentary bodies. My noble friend was well aware of the position of the previous government. It is appropriate now that the present Government should be required to explain and justify their policy.
The position taken by my predecessors echoed that of past British governments which have always condemned the 1915 massacres. We have always taken pride in our close ties with the Armenian people, a bond which was forged when Gladstone took up their cause during the massacres of the 1890s and which was strengthened when the British government in 1916 issued in a Blue Book the data available for a "full and authentic record" of what had occurred in 1915.
However, in preparing for this debate I have noted that past British government decisions not to recognise the events of 1915 as a genocide have rested on the absence of evidence that the Turkish government of the day took a specific decision to eliminate the Armenians under their control. Indeed we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that this remains the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Symons. Can the Minister therefore confirm that it would require new evidence to come to light in order to change this position?
From these Benches we are of course sympathetic to the symbolism that international recognition of this eight decade old tragedy as genocide would constitute for the Armenian people. But all governments have a duty to assess carefully events of the past to determine what today requires official action. Britain's credentials as the

825
strongest denouncer of genocide and war crimes in the international community are second to none. From these Benches we fully endorse the words of the General Assembly in 1951 that genocide,
"shocks the conscience of mankind, results in great losses to humanity…and is contrary to moral law and to the spirit and aims of the United Nations",
words which were reiterated by the International Court of Justice in its judgment in May 1993 on the case concerning the application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia-Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)).
In this country successive governments have supported the establishment of the International War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague to bring to justice war criminals front the Bosnian conflict. We have taken a leading role to assist in the training of the prosecutors and judges for the tribunal set up in Rwanda to bring to justice the perpetrators of the Rwandan genocide. And most recently President Milosevic and his colleagues have been warned that they will be personally held responsible for the crimes associated with ethnic cleansing in Kosovo.
I believe that it would be of considerable benefit, therefore, to learn the extent to which the Minister accepts the argument posed by a number of your Lordships tonight, that there can be no basis for complete forgiveness and reconciliation between Armenia and Turkey without a recognition of the massacre as state-sponsored genocide from Turkey, on the basis that Turkey is living a lie and that Armenia still suffers an unresolved hurt.
What assessment has the Minister made of fears that if the Government acceded to requests to declare the activities of the Moslem Ottoman government against the Christian Armenians to have been genocide, while perhaps an accurate description of what was done and a proper use of the word, it would open the sores of an old wound and bring to life an 84 year-old tragedy. If so, what consequences do the Government believe would take place in those circumstances? The people concerned were denied their dream of independence in 1923, sacrificed on an altar of realpolitik and expediency. Nevertheless, over the decades of this century Armenians from across the globe have kept alive the vision of an independent Armenia and, in 1991, that vision became a reality. Today Armenia is a free and sovereign state, a living monument to the memory of those who died 84 years ago and a lasting pledge that such a tragedy will never again occur.
I seek an assurance from the Minister this evening that the United Kingdom will continue to place the highest priority upon efforts to preserve the historic establishment of a free Armenia, by redoubling our commitment to peace and stability in the Caucasus region and by playing our full part, together with the international community, in the quest for a just and lasting resolution to the conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh, to which we have returned on a number of occasions over the past few years.
826
For it is incumbent on the international community to support reform, democracy, economic development and integration in the Caucasus region, to strengthen modern political and economic institutions and to assist in energy development, in the creation of an east-west transport corridor, and, most importantly, to help in conflict resolution in this still volatile region. Therefore the legacy of this tragedy, and a fitting monument to those who died in 1915, must be our recognition that crimes against humanity must not be tolerated and that evil must never be allowed to conquer.
6.43 p.m.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for initiating this debate, and I echo the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and other noble Lords tonight who have spoken in praise of her vigour in pursuing the causes she believes in. The noble Baroness is well known, both in this House and beyond, as a tireless campaigner for several causes and not least that of the Armenian people.
With others of your Lordships who have spoken tonight, I heard her speak passionately in support of the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh in the debate of 17th March, which was introduced by the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley. She and other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, have regularly written to Ministers on the issue of the shocking killings and deportations of Armenians in eastern Anatolia during the First World War. The noble Baroness has outlined some of these grim details tonight, and they have been echoed in some of the contributions from other speakers.
The position of Her Majesty's Government, which the noble Baroness has asked us to review, is, I believe, well known and understood, but it certainly bears repeating here tonight. The British Government condemned the massacres of 1915–16 at the time and viewed the sufferings of the Armenian people then as a tragedy of historic proportions. The British Government of today, like their predecessors, in no way dissent in any form from that view. Nor do we seek to deny or to play down the extent of that tragedy. It was a gruesome, horrifying tragedy, as the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, and other noble Lords have echoed tonight. I assure them that we are in no way dissenting from that analysis of what happened, but in the absence of unequivocal evidence to show that the Ottoman administration took a specific decision to eliminate the Armenians under their control at the time, British governments have not recognised the events of 1915 and 1916 as genocide.
Many other governments—and here I have to say to your Lordships, in spite of some of the statements that have been made tonight, the vast majority of other governments—are in a similar position. Very few of them have officially attributed the name genocide to these tragic events. In our opinion that is rightly so, because we do not believe it is the business of governments today to review events of over 80 years ago with a view to pronouncing on them.
These are matters of legal and historical debate, arid the noble Lord, Lord Monson, gave an expert arid detailed exposition of a very different view of some of

827
the events that took place from that presented by some of the other speakers. These events took place in a time of massive and dramatic upheaval in Europe and the former Ottoman territories in the first decades of this century. I put it to your Lordships that these should not, in countries not involved in the events concerned, be matters of political controversy today.
The noble Baroness, the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, and the noble Lords, Lord Avebury and Lord Moynihan, referred to the codification of the concept of genocide in international law, which did not happen until the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 1948, which entered into force on 12th January 1951. It has not been established whether the terms of that convention can be applied retroactively, and I would at this point say to the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, that the trials at Nuremberg were for crimes related to the Holocaust: the trials were for war crimes or crimes against humanity. It was the evidence of the Holocaust which emerged during and after the Second World War and through the work of the Nuremberg tribunal which led to the codification of genocide in international law.
However, let us look beyond the legal and historical issues. With the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, I would like to put this to the House: what would be the practical outcome of a declaration by this or any other government that the events of 1915 and 1916 constituted genocide? A foreign government taking a public position on an issue as contentious and sensitive as these events of 84 years ago would severely hamper their ability, as a friend of all parties, to help the region realise its potential. And who would benefit from our taking such a position? As the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, made clear, that is a problem. It was also referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan.
The events of 1915–16 remain a painful issue and a source of tension in relations between two states with which we enjoy excellent relations—the Republics of Armenia and of Turkey. For our part, we believe that it is better to look forward than back. We hope that these two countries will be able to overcome the historical legacy of bitterness and pursue better relations, in their own interests and in the interests of their region and the international community. We urge them to do so.
Improvement of this relationship, which I believe both sides sincerely wish, together with the resolution of the conflicts of the southern Caucasus, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, would transform the region, opening the way to a newly prosperous, democratic and stable area. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that he and the Government see this in the same light. In the debate on 17th March many noble Lords spoke of such a future for the region. As my noble friend Lady Symons made clear on that occasion, the Government want to play their part in achieving such a goal.
The noble Earl, Lord Carlisle, raised some specific points. I shall try to deal with them briefly, but I am willing to expand on them in writing. He asked about
828
support for the independence of Armenia. We are firm friends of Armenia and we support its independence, working with the Armenians not least through NATO's Partnership for Peace Programme. He asked whether we would work through the OSCE to resolve the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh. I can certainly confirm to him, as did my noble friend Lady Symons on 17th March, the Government's commitment to working through the OSCE to resolve this conflict. The noble Earl asked also about the British Council. The British Council is active in the region, including in Armenia, but opening a centre in Yerevan is dependent on the availability of resources. It is not through a lack of desire on the part of the British Council or of the Government. He asked whether we would consider supporting a Chair for Armenian Studies. I shall certainly bring that issue to the attention of the relevant Ministers.
It is not only in this Parliament that the issue of the sufferings of the Armenian people has been raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, referred to the European Parliament. Perhaps I may clarify the point about EU membership. The conditions which all applicants for membership of the EU, including Turkey, must fulfil were laid down by the Copenhagen European Council in 1993. These criteria include stable institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities. In its report of November 1998 on Turkey's application for membership, the European Commission concluded that significant shortcomings remained in those areas. But the Council has not laid down any additional conditions relating to recognition of an Armenian genocide. The European Parliament would need to give its assent to Turkey's accession to the EU, but there are no set criteria on which it could base a decision to grant or withhold its consent. That would be a matter for the European Parliament at the time. I hope that I have clarified that area.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, referred to the example of France. I think it is worth recalling the words of M. Hubert Vedrine, the Foreign Minister of France, which, like us, enjoys good relations with both Armenia and Turkey. He recently told the French Senate of his government's fears that the adoption by the Senate of a Bill recognising the events of 1916 as a genocide would serve above all the interests of those,
"who favour isolation, authoritarian nationalism and the repudiation of progress and openness",
rather than to end conflict and overcome hatred. I know that the noble Baroness and those of a like mind who have spoken on this issue today would count themselves, along with Her Majesty's Government, among the enemies of conflict and hatred and would never knowingly support them.
I should like to refer to one point that was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and alluded to by one or two other noble Lords. The Turkish authorities have not denied that deaths took place in that period of 1915–16. The argument centres on the scale of and the responsibility

829
for these killings. As I have already indicated, we hope that the Armenian and Turkish governments will overcome their difference.
Let us learn from the past, as the noble Lords, Lord Biffen and Lord Avebury, correctly urged us to do, but let us not become prisoners of the past. Let us concentrate on trying to ensure that tragedies such as this and the horrors unfolding now in Kosovo—the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, correctly drew the parallel—do not happen again. The international community is now more active than ever before in backing up words with action. The awful events in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda during this decade have led to the establishment by the Security Council of international criminal tribunals to bring to justice those responsible. Last year the international community took the historic decision to establish a permanent international criminal court. We are proud that Britain played a leading role in bringing that about. Our hope is that this will make those intent on crimes against humanity think twice. We shall not forget past victims but we shall focus our efforts on making sure that others do not have to suffer in the same way.
830
With the greatest possible respect for the arguments sincerely and eloquently put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, the Government believe that the right approach—the constructive approach—to dealing with the historical legacy of atrocities against the Armenian people is for us to urge the peoples of the region to look to the future, a point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, the noble Earl, Lord Carlisle, and the noble Lord, Lord Biffen, and that we should join the peoples of the region in helping them to build their future.
We are not suggesting that we or they should deny the past or fail to learn its lessons. I do not believe that the peoples of Armenia and Turkey can do that. We should allow them the space to resolve between themselves the issues which divide them. We can and should support their efforts to do so and help in whatever way we can to build trust between them. But we could not play the role of supportive friend to both countries were we to take an essentially political position on an issue so sensitive for both.
House adjourned at two minutes before seven o'clock.

  Human Rights Conventions
  Human Rights Conventions
  Human Rights Commission: Website
  Human Rights Commission: Website
  Srebrenica: UN Report
  Srebrenica: UN Report
  General Pinochet
  General Pinochet
  Kosovo Liberation Army
  Kosovo Liberation Army
  Kosovo: Refugee and Aid Programmes
  Kosovo: Refugee and Aid Programmes
  Kosovo: Protection of Aid Workers
  Kosovo: Protection of Aid Workers
  Kosovo: UNHCR Capacity
  Kosovo: UNHCR Capacity
  Financial Services and Markets Bill
  Financial Services and Markets Bill
  Clinical Terminology Evaluation
  Clinical Terminology Evaluation
  Human Cloning
  Human Cloning
  Refugees' Dependants
  Refugees' Dependants
  Genetically Modified Crop Trials
  Genetically Modified Crop Trials
  E.coli 0157
  E.coli 0157
  Contamination in Agricultural Produce
  Contamination in Agricultural Produce
  Tuberculosis
  Tuberculosis
  Infective Toxoplasmosis Organisms
  Infective Toxoplasmosis Organisms
  Vitamin and Mineral Supplements
  Vitamin and Mineral Supplements
  Food Standards Agency
  Food Standards Agency
  Piscivorous Birds Study
  Piscivorous Birds Study
  Northern Ireland Assembly: Choice of Languages
  Northern Ireland Assembly: Choice of Languages